DANIEL  WEBSTER’S  IDEAS  ON  INTERNATIONAL  RELATIONS 


BY 


ROBERT  C.  HAYES 


THESIS 


FOR  THE 

DEGREE  OF  BACHELOR  OF  ARTS 

IN 

HISTORY 


COLLEGE  OF  LIBERAL  ARTS  AND  SCIENCES 

UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 


1922 


I92Z 

H32 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 


^y._30j i92-S__ 


THIS  IS  TO  CERTIFY  THAT  THE  THESIS  PREPARED  UNDER  MY  SUPERVISION  BY 


J0CimT_C..:HAIES 


ENTITLED.  _ _?^_EL_  MBSIER  »_S_  IJEAS_  ON  _ JMEBMTIQRAL  .BiUlTIONS 


IS  APPROVED  BY  ME  AS  FULFILLING  THIS  PART  OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS  FOR  THE 


DEGREE  OF  MQSIXQ.B_OX-iJlT^_IN_iIlSaJDiI 


Instructor  in  Charge 


Approv 


HEAD  OF  DEPARTMENT  OF 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2015 


https://archive.org/details/danielwebstersidOOhaye 


TABLE  OF  COITTENTS 


I,  Biographical  Introduction 

II.  General  Principles  which  govern  international  relations * 3 

1.  International  Law 3 

/ 

2.  National  Individuality  and  Non-interference .10 

3.  International  Comnunity  of  Interest 15 

III.  Specific  Rules  of  International  Law 

1.  Rules  of  Warfare 17 

(1)  Distinction  between  Combatants  and  Non-combatants  17 

(2)  Treatment  of  Prisoners  of  War 17 

2.  Rules  governing  the  status  and  actions  of  citizens  abroad  18 

3.  The  maritime  Jurisdiction  of  a nation's  law 21 

4.  Extradition  of  Criminals 26 

IV.  The  Participation  of  the  United  States  in  Foreigi  Affairs 

1.  The  United  States  as  the  example  of  democracy 27 

2.  Neutrality  the  national  policy .30 

3.  The  wisdom  of  peace 32 

4.  National  honor:  qualifications  of  his  peaceful  attitude  . 

5.  The  influence  of  commercial  considerations  upon  Webster's 

ideas  on  foreign  relations 


V.  Conclusion 


41 


i 


V;, 


W, 


1 


r 


V f 


'! 


run 


f 


Daniel  webstee's  ideas  on  ikteenational  kelations 


I.  Biographical  Introduction 

Daniel  Webster,  bom  at  Salisbury,  New  Hampshire  on  January  18,  1702, 
was  the  son  of  an  ex-indian  fighter,  soldier,  and  pioneer,  who  by  his  vigor  and 
intellect  had  made  himself  Judge  of  the  local  court,  and  who  determined  to  give 
his  children  a good  education.  As  a result,  Daniel  was  enabled  to  graduate  from 
Dartmouth  College  in  1801.  He  chose  law  as  a profession,  and  was  admitted  to  the 
Bar  in  Boston  in  1805.  After  practicing  in  Boscowan  and  Portsmouth  he  was  elected 
in  1813  to  the  House  of  Representatives.  He  returned  to  the  practise  of  law  in 
1816  and  made  himself  famous  in  the  Darmouth  College  case  and  others.  His  ideas 
of  national  union  were  expressed  in  some  of  these. 

In  1823  he  returned  to  Congress  as  representative  from  J'feissachusetts. 

The  speech  on  the  Revolution  in  Greece, for  free  trade  in  1824  and  for  the  main- 
tenance of  a protective  tariff  when  once  established  four  years  later. 

In  1827  he  was  sent  to  the  Senate  and  three  years  after  the  debate  on 
Foote's  resolution  occurred.  He  was  made  Secretary  of  State  in  1841  and  during 
hie  term  negotiated  successfully  and  peacefully  the  case  of  McLeod  (althou^  the 
British  government  had  declared  that  it  would  regard  his  conviction  as  a casus 
belli) , the  question  of  the  right  of  search  of  American  vessels  to  prevent  the 
Slave  trade;  and  the  impressment  dispute.  The  treaty  of  Washington  was  concluded 
in  1842,  with  Lord  Ashburton  the  British  representative,  and  was  ratified  by  both 
nations  after  inevitable  objections  by  both  sides. 

Webster  resigied  in  1843  and  two  years  later  returned  to  the  Senate. 

His  opposition  to  the  Mexican  war  and  endorsement  of  the  Coapromise  of  1850  mark 
this  term. 

Prom  1836  to  1852  he  had  been  a candidate  for  the  presidency  whenever 


’■'■Sr";  T^' 


i,  ■■■  V.';,v,. 

f '.■  ,' 

I 


7'i 

I 


.•■'...  ..^  --  -.r  . ••  ■ • 


•'W 


•»'  M 


■'■ff 


'■*.••'  ':.j 


I 


r 


•* . t/i  •* 

>■  -'♦-’  ,r  ^,. 


C'  .ih  ^ I ,'  ■ ' 

rJ  i'{»  - . I : . y - ^,*!k  -'J' 


«•  .<>  »'  w • &/•>  f 'I  ;<  r* 


J 

'I 


. . 


'W. 


;f  ,.  ; _ ':.  ■'  ''  ' ' ■ 

i , '*i  *:■.•,  ‘ J'  *•' ■ '['}»'  ■ ■ I 

< - ■;•  V:'f,v 

1 V :'■  ‘v-7/^r 

i ■ ,,, 

J.V.JjS.i*  -<*  t$’-  p ' f‘-.;'-  • •■'.  * 

'i  > t 

\r-sir:tr^  *>‘c''i(  -<j 


, *iv.  ■ 

■w  • .7,  '■■.  ■ 


'■ji* 


>.  f 


■, . n ’ • ■ 


• t 


* . A . . ^ .•  ' T V’ 

, ■ •■: 


'»if‘  -Va  t-  - 


■ • 'i  -M'  ■ J''*  '■■'■■’^■■■'IfjIf'iM 


i '■  Krt-/ • * ’'>•*  ■'■■■*  ' “■  ■ ■ 


ii 


.■'IJ;/:  • AV  1'^  X .7  ^ V .V  T*y 


■:'vj;  > 'jiS’ift.’'' 


■'••E  • ’ f ; r r - '\  -! 

■ ' ' ^ -^V*  ■»  I S«i. A. /.*»«.«>  M 


'.c.\. 


J‘->r  ■? 


•J  • - S • 


^ ‘ 


I,  ' »7  • 


'i  li'V. 


»r 


v». 


7tE  -ia'  T»)  a'7 

•) 


'7^  f- -■ 

. ■ ,.  -■  ■ 


^"wr 


/•j  X,‘;fr»- 

.1  ■-.'  ;V.. , 

s 


>*  Vi/?' 


A,'*:  ' ...  ‘‘^ 


. i. 


a/’-I. 


2 


occasion  offered,  but  never  with  any  chance  of  success. 

In  1850  he  again  became  Secretary  of  State,  a position  which  he  held  un- 
til his  death  two  years  later.  The  chief  events  of  this  term  were  the  Holssmaan 
correspondence,  the  controversy  with  England  in  regard  to  Nicaragua,  the  dispute 
over  the  right  of  way  on  the  isthmus  of  Tehauntepec,  the  riot  which  resulted  in 
the  destruction  of  the  Spanish  consulate  at  New  Orleans,  renewed  dispute  about  the 
fisheries,  and  the  affair  of  the  lobos  islands. 

The  purpose  of  this  paper  is  not  to  describe  these  events,  but  to  summar- 
ize the  ideas  of  Webster  on  international  relations  which  his  dealings  with  them 
reveal.  ^ 

Daniel  Webster  regarded  the  international  situation  as  composed  of  sun- 
dry Independent  sovereign  states,  each  with  complete  and  exclusive  right  to  con- 
trol its  own  internal  and  foreign  affairs;  but  controlled  and  regulated  in  their 
proceedings  by  international  law,  which  prescribed  certain  methods  and  required 
others,  and  maintained  the  rights  of  small  nations;  a law  enforced  by  the  powerful 
sanction  of  Public  opinion;  and  held  together  to  a considerable  degree  by  mutual 
interests  - chiefly  commercial  - and  the  common  enjoyment  of  the  benefits  of  peace. 
These  three  characteristics  - the  stress  on  the  importance  of  international  law; 
the  emphasis  on  non-intervention  by  every  state  in  the  concerns  of  its  neighbor; 
and  conviction  that  peace  and  co-operation  between  nations  supplies  the  best  means 
of  advancing  their  interests  - seem  to  me  to  be  the  chief  features  of  his  views  on 


international  relations 


r'llf.^l''r>i  'il'*Al^  i»  * f ' •< ■ itf ~'y -.  .•  I.  ' 


m. 


f: 


u-'-lPT?  » 

r- 


. 1 


r - 


ml 


“ • •■ ; tiH  \S*Vy»'^A6I^ 


►I  '■fl  ' k '''I 

. ' 's  • ■'  ,"'i  • ^.  X *~  ^ ^ 


L'  Off  Vf^ri  t:  '*.■■  ’'  ‘ 9^, 


‘ ?3  _ ■■■■.;•* 


‘fiTx\/v|^tnP  fu‘  ^«ifc  r^d*t  xf/ti^,747«vor:'i»tc<0'  «f<f  . |V 

, '®  . ’ ^ ':■  ,)  ‘ ■ »'  ■' Jl‘  J ”' 


‘-.•fjt.  ..-  .,  . .Y(., ..  ^ ’■.  ' ,<  • . ...  '■"  .;'•:  ■ .-■■  .,/ "ijo"  r*  fife 


x--m 


tliiM  «.<;  rS'^lrtTiti'  i»fe  im'  ,W>2 


1 


m' ftoWte^^  "■* 

•:'-  '■  ' .V,  ’’  VC-'  4 

ja.*W 


'll  ‘iji*.  ■'  ^ ^ • • ->r’“.lL  ■'  *'  . ® -n 

J:‘  ' J*’'-  w ^ . :■  ^ .•  ' ^ ■...'4;.  ,: 

ff'  ..  .'.•'■v'i  . r:  'M’''J.^7^  itiS*  *.»•■**■  A .13^  aJj  .: 


■‘"-  ■ ■'  ..  32*«  '■  . ■^‘ 


, . ■■'>4s.  .1  '/iViV  /j.  •.  ■'  ^ . . ■ 


'fc' 

'■  ' f ■.  »' 


p T\^-  “'.ifarafff-''  ■•  . ‘ ^i‘  ■ . ~x'  ••^iV  ■*•"  **:  - fIJ*t'^-  •'■'  *•  ' ,■*  ■-  , . *.  ■ 

i*  ■ . ■^^^^^'■  ' , ' to-  , .f  ./  ,’i^^r  i^ 


W\ 


V i 


1 '■  ■ S f ' L4 


V / »•  Ji'f'r^  9‘  •«  **^^45**/  ' 


3 

II.  General  Principles  Which  Govern  International  Pelations. 

1.  International  Law 

In  diplomatic  disputes  it  has,  of  course,  always  been  the  atten^it  of 
nations  to  prove  themselves  in  the  right  by  means  of  appeals  to  precedent.  But 
Webster's  recognized  established  set  of  permanent  international  regulations,  which 
made  it  obligatory  to  regard  wider  considerations  than  the  powers  or  interests  of 
the  parties  to  a controversy,  if  not  in  advance  of  his  times  was,  at  least,  note- 
worthy. "The  law  of  nations"  is  a common  phrase  in  his  writings.^ 

The  demand  of  the  en5>eror  of  Russia  that  Turkey  give  up  Kossuth  and  his 
followers  he  strenuously  objected  to  because  it  was  "an  act  of  derision  of  the  es- 
tablished law  of  nations",  which  confined  the  jurisdiction  of  a sovereign  to  his 
own  nation  and  subjects.  Although  he  had  had  his  "syn^athles  much  enlisted  in  the 
cause  of  Hungarian  liberty"  and  had  "wept  at  its  failure"  he  was  enough  of  a law- 
yer to  declare  himself  to  be  more  indignant  at  this  violation  of  law  than  at  all 

2 

the  previous  events  that  had  passed  in  her  struggle  for  liberty. 

The  whole  world  according  to  this  statesman  has  an  interest  in  preserv- 
ing international  law.  For  it  is  the  instrumentality  that  maintains  the  situation 

<7 

in  which  not  only  the  rights  and  integrity  of  small  nations  are  preserved  but 

4 

from  which  the  rights  of  all  nations,  even  the  most  powerful,  are  derived. 

Accordingly,  a power  that  should  defy  international  law  would  be,  in 
some  measure,  the  enemy  of  mankind:  an  outlaw  which  threatened  the  fabric  of  the 

^orks,  Vol.  II,  p.  255. 

Speech  at  the  Festival  of  the  Sons  of  New  Hampshire,  1849;  Works,  Vol.  IV,  pp.213, 
213. 

3 

" — Europe  has  seen  a family  of  nations  flourishing  within  its  limits,  the  small 

among  the  large,  protected  not  always  by  power,  but  by  a principle  above  power 

Reo  in  Greece.  Great  Speeches  and  Orations,  pp.  65,  66. 

"Our  rl^ts  as  a nation,  like  those  of  other  nations,  are  held  under  the  sanction 
of  national  law  " Works,  vol.  IV,  p.  213.  ("national  law"  ho  uses  in  the  sanse 
of  law  that  regulates  the  conduct  of  nations  in  international  affairs). 


4 

society  of  nations  and  against  which  all  civilized  nations  had  a complaint.  Mr. 
Webster  did  not  go  so  far,  apparently,  as  to  say  definitely  that  all  nations 
shared  a responsibility  for  maintaining  "national  law"  even  in  cases  in  which 

U'-C' 

their  Interest  was  not  Involved,  but  he  did  say  that  "every  offense  against  that 
(i.e.  , national  law)  is  an  offence  against  the  rights  of  the  civilized  world", ^ 
and  therefore  all  nations  share  the  right  to  interfere;  and  the  culprit  nation 
will  be  obliged  to  justify  Itself  before  the  tribunal  of  the  whole  world,  or  be 
subject  to  a demand  for  punishment  by  the  whole  world.  Of  the  En^erors  of  Russia's 
demand  he  said:  " — if  — he  shall  perpetrate  so  great  a violation  of  national 
law  as  to  seize  these  Hungarians  and  to  execute  them,  he  will  stand  as  a criminal 
and  a malefactor  in  the  view  of  the  public  law  of  the  world' the  whole  world  will 
bo  the  tribunal  to  try  him,  and  he  must  appear  before  it,  and  hold  up  his  hand, 

and  plead,  and  abide  its  judgment. he  is  not  the  supreme  lawgiver  or  executor 

of  national  law,  and  every  offence  agaiinst  that  is  an  offence  against  the  civil- 
ized rights  of  the  whole  world.  If  he  breaks  that  law  in  the  case  of  Turkey,  or 
any  other  case,  the  whole  world  has  a right  to  call  him  out  and  to  demand  his  pun- 
ishment. " 

It  was  Mr.  Webster's  aim  in  diplomatic  controversies,  in  which^we  were 
the  plaintiff,  to  show  that  foreign  nations  had  not  only  violated  our  individual 
rights,  but  also  this  law  of  nations;  thus  incriminating  them  ’vith  a wider  offence; 
and  in  cases  where  the  United  States  was  the  defendant,  his  aim  was  to  justify  his 
country  by  appeal  to  this  law.  And  it  is  notable  that  even  where  not  of  primary 
necessity  for  his  particular  case,  he  laid  down  the  law  at  length.  He  seemed  to 

^Works,  vol.  IV,  p.212. 

^Ibld. 


f W' 


«•*  .•  . * .'iirU'' '/' 

i;.'  •/'■'  ■ . ;'  ..vi:*:  ■’ 


*M!.-  .<  ^ 


P ■ ' 


s 


,{J  ;• r «r‘ : ’’  V 


Uj  f '•-  , • )■ 

i--  ; 

•'.  O 

ffl 

t'x>  •! 

> •*• 
y ■ 

•'  ,li 

. r:^''  Jr'  ';r' 

f 

■ ■.  .M.  .-'Jv 

- 

i,.;  *T‘  ■ * ■ - I r J’*-'. 

' > 

• • i ty-  '*■!  -7'  ' 

1 

- 

, ;0;--  -'  6 V- 

Ir  •■ 

'i  .‘ V^iV/,4  .,*'  ■'. 

f-..  ^ ft} 

f \ 

‘ ■ i 

' 1 

’ r ’r' 

L'  'y‘  ’■  ■'  f’-  • 

. ij.' 

,i,  t "V'  ' ,,  ^ t:t 

‘'.  ■ 

7 

1 

,♦  - ? • 

f • - 

» *■£  A”, 

- , .r  ’ • 

! . 

. . ' ■'  _ - A'  -••. 

•;. ' ■'■  ‘i 

, , , iil  ■ ->. 

, y' 

.:  r.'iJv  i’J  / 

•'*•.. .:/» ■ ^ 

• ; 

■ uM-  ■ ■-  '• 

■ ■ 

. :’.)J..''-  :■)  ■ ■ 

. t:. . , r 

jc  ■ 

-p  ■ ‘ , ■ 

.V 

j 

-.U  -,  Vfjcvv  JUl». 

* r' 

’ ' 

I'  '^lO  . '".  '■  ■C'^.vi.V'  •/  .' 

' • - ‘ . • ' t • 


v,^  r :U\  - .:  ' ■ , -X-rt^'.-v^yy 

•T  ■ ’ ' ' 


i I 


' v.;.-Ci  ■. 


:r, 


ft 


*<  i -*: , .' 


‘.  V '}u 


..  ..i  {! 


~>  • i uX  • *'-  'Z  - -■''v-  ■*■;•'  •'■»  ' ■■'* 

, xT  » * 

jj  fr..'  :yii*  i v '.i  •:  I";!- Cl-V -t"/:r}  • . ’•  s.;.: 


’ ' I*  -4  ’'■*  *.‘ 


it  ‘ 


■ »r 
- T 


UP  ■'  ’'  . , 

,J(  ' 51 

f ^ u r-A 


•j 


!> 


’ Ill  i -Jl'  , A*  ' 
r>j  *■  “■  '■  - A 


...:  ■ I A : .'  :i  --’  .n-  f>{  r tf 


^ '*  v;  'ivv  'a 


' -"W  > 

• — I, 


I 


I 


\ 5;.^. 

c J . C i . 


‘ 7i:  I so 


• ‘ of 

■»•,■•.'<  "i 

fo  'f’ 


. .V.' 


. *'■ 


* aJ’f — :?=~ 


5 

show  solicitude  not  only  for  his  arguiient,  but  for  the  preservation  of  this  law. 
Being  an  able  lawyer,  the  result  was  that  he  established,  or  strengthened,  a num- 
ber of  important  precedents  of  international  intercourse. 

In  the  case  of  the  Big  Creole  for  ezan^le,  he  cited  the  admission  of 

I«rd  Palraerton  in  the  case  of  the  Comet  Econlum,  and  Enterprise,  that  American 

/ 

claimants,  who  were  lawfully  in  possession  of  their  slaves  within  the  British  ter- 
ritory, and  who  had  been  disturbed  in  their  legal  possession  of  slaves  by  function- 
aries of  the  British  Government,  were  entitled  to  condensation;  and  be  asserted 
that  "this  admission  is  broad  enou^  to  cover  the  case  of  the  Creole  — But  al- 
though this  was  enough  to  win  his  case,  and  secure  all  that  could  be  secured  for 
his  clients,  the  injured  American  slave  owners,^  althou^  he,  as  Just  stated,  recog- 
nized the  sufficiency  of  this  argument,  and  althou^  he  was  lawyer  enough  to  know 
it  was  best  to  leave  well  enou^  alone,  - that  it  was  in  a sense  wisest  to  confine 
the  discussion  to  grounds  in  which  he  was  admittedly  in  the  right,  especially  when 
these  might  appear  to  be  the  whole  grounds  of  his  objection;  nevertheless  he  pro- 
ceeded to  add  a contention  that,  even  if  granted,  would  be  granted  too  late  to  aid 
his  clients,  but  which  as  an  established  law  of  nations  would  make  the  internation- 
al situation  better  in  the  future,  "But  it  (i.e.  this  admission,  which  established 
his  contention)  does  not  extend  to  what  we  consider  the  true  doctrine"  according 
to  the  laws  and  customs  of  nations;  he  wrote  Mr.  Everett^  "and  therefore  cannot  be 
acquiesced  in  as  the  exactly  correct  general  rule."*' 

There  was,  of  course,  little  remarkable  in  the  attempt  to  show  national 

law  on  our  side.  That  was  a natural,  inevitable  attengit  by  both  parties.  Even  if 
the  question  had  been  generally  recognized  as  one  of  national  law  it  would  be  worth 

^Works,  vol.  XI7,  pp. 375-6. 

2 

He  proceeded  to  state  his  understanding  of  the  law:  not  only  is  no  unfriend- 

ly intercourse  by  the  local  authorities  to  be  allowed,  but  that  aid  and  succor 
should  be  extended  in  these,  as  in  other  cases  which  may  arise,  affecting  the 
rights  and  interests  of  citizens  of  friendly  states."  Ibid. 


it.. 


r^. 


:j  '/iV.'-i/jiiii^-*-#  * 


ki  i ? ' 


•Af  'fi 


z:r 


mr 


.y.x.'vjt  *»  Lf  ■ 


r/  *u«  e .'  ■•'  ' ■’  ‘V  ‘ 


X I 


m- 


i ;:T  ■•<.’  ;■  it>. 

,•  ^’:  / : » '•  ! ; ■'  :> 

• • . t ' ■.  ■ : : j • c r»r  .'*  'v 


KiPiijrjU  ':  , fr.vQT  >‘v'  * - -V: 


.«*  ■'  ••  -■'  • •>  • - 

T-'  r 

fi  'i  J/0<  <ij  - >■  ,/ 

^■,  C-  : 

V : . r;  ■•  •■;'  ■'  ii 


f" 


■>;  »'«5ii  .-.  itf.. 


:.f>  . ■>  < ?vA..t  -■  ..  . 

•',:  . , ■ ; •'  ■ t '.'  r4*'.  ■ J ” " ty  i t * ' , ..'n?/. 


t-:- 

' ■ cf 

j jf 


■ . b 

f ■ ''■ 

I 

K- 


rf.'c  J iJ» 


•^r’  "e: 


. a*’-  ? 

. *4  ^.  ■ *'  V‘  ■■l’  _ ' N I 

L^  ' >n 


[ ;.  i:;'*  I'jf 


S.‘ 


-jB&T  ♦ 

■-:  * -tA-T  il 

'SA 


■ I 


'■X. 


'vj  ; .-  :i.’i''  ’•  , ?" ■ ■ - 

^ ■ . fB 

• • : .v  ’ it-  /r^-  i • }| 


■'  *. 
«f. 

I 


i ,u  ■>-•■  '■  ^ »-.  - .'■ 


' '.  ; i. . :f. '.'  *: 


. -.i.  am';  «t'.T  ‘ ' ■;ci.>i.i;--‘< 

. . * fr.  -I*' *5  Mi  • ' . 3i5*.'.v;v  ■;-  i.f. 


•..,  •,  ■ ^ j ; ..  'if -.'V  ♦VR«1  ■ ‘ '-i! 

r / If 

\fs:-..:r.  . ^■■/. '.X  e;.  ^ 

0 


* ; . - V •’  vJ  Jl5‘X<-*  '•^•0 


” . ( . 

Uri  / ^Ifli|fc?.»- 

• . U/  • 

u •:■  ra  , ^ 

• i'f  . ■,  :•  Ci4»*i-iv  i . .'j  <’■■’“  I, 


'5 


6 


while  nevertheless  to  examine  to  what  degree  Webster  was  representative  of  his  day 
in  this  regard.  Although  references  to  precedent  and  custom  in  such  disputes  are 
inevitable,  I think  it  both  true  and  important  that  Webster  emphasized  the  legal 
aspect  of  such  affairs,^  that  he  felt  that  that  party  was  in  the  right  which  could 
best  answer  to  the  demands  of  the  national  law;^  that  in  this  case  instead  of  cry- 
ing out  that  the  British  authorities  had  violated  our  rights  and  demanding  what 
they  meant  by  so  doing  - as  it  was  the  general  tendency  of  his  countrymen  to  do 
he  quietly  inquired  "what  duty  or  power,  according  to  the  principles  of  national 
intercourse,  had  they  to  inquire  at  all?"  The  point  is  not  that  Webster  introduced 
a new  eleinsnt  or  idea,  but  that  in  his  diplomatic  correspondence  he  laid  great 
wei^t  on  this  already  present  idea  of  international  law  and  of  obligation  to  it, 
as  distinguishable  from  qr^he  source  of  obligations  to  each  other  of  the  parties 
to  the  dispute.  All  diplomats  occasionally  used  an  appeal  to  the  law  of  nations; 
it  was  Webster's  most  comon  and  apparently  most  valued  method.  Such  phrases  as 
"law  of  nations",  "ggugty  and  practise  of  nations"  look  out  from  almost  all  the 
pages  of  his  writings;  in  one  letter  they  occur  fifteen  times. ^ 

International  law  was  not  entirely  dependent  upon,  in  Webster's  opinion, 
the  good  faith  of  those  parties  to  it.  Not  only  was  there  the  tribunal  of  the 
whole  world  before  which  nations  were  answerable  for  their  deeds,  but  this  tribun- 
al was  possessed  of  a most  powerful  sanction  for  the  enforcement  of  its  decisions: 
that  is,  public  opinion.  There  are  few  things  more  striking  in  Webster's  writings 
than  the  emphasis  with  which  he  states  the  inportance  and  power  of  public  opinion. 
Its  power  is  a characteristic  of  the  age  as  the  dominance  of  "fleets  and  arms,  and 
subsidies"  were  of  the  past;  the  public  opinion  of  the  civilized  world  is  rap- 
idly gaining  an  ascendancy  over  mere  brutal  force.  It  is  already  able  to  oppose 

1 

Works,  vol.  XI,  p.303f. 





1 

h - 


f 


:)t 


▼ * t ' 


. r.ri  ;i 


;^v^ 


'•Uljo 

■ ' 


J 


*r,  '■: 

re/’  £,.  • 

^ *“■,  J ’ i '.>  r .' 

/r  ■ 

; ~ h.  ‘iJ  t/'  ■'. 

■ ; ■•t::  .::  ::  I ■ ■■;  *^  ^ r . 

'.’-'.‘f  .'l  .i  : .y  ' I 

: V .. *:  , : ^ <• . -C; 0 ; •:  * •■  .•  :i : 

. -t  j , ' 'i  .f ' it  'Vv'  « 


’!  ir''3r.ir 

■ -c»,  ii*  'oV  •■•a-  :yc  i*  -J*  ;■•!'■  ■! 

i V ■ . f J ' '■  •,, •' 

rr  -r.*v  •<*  . 


T5- 

A • 


ac  i 


I 


T 


5-‘  P 


M*;  ■’  /..■^  7 

, V •• 


i^xirr  ' -ir^  1; 


*t 


» I 


I 


;:•,  ’'Ui^ 


.•^;  t;:  , f; 

|. 


-o: ..  ■ ■ ■ V 


t'  : .;.A  .'/•t'.'J '''-.; i •”  ;.r‘;i.PT  , ' '-  ..1  J'i' 

' ./'i/i.'  ^ - !r 


II 


ll 


I 


;?«?:  " • -Mt*- • '. 


I ‘ I 


\rr  :,/,;  '"  V V :■*■  ,, I. i4£'.r!i  /• -■  ..t--'^"  *■.  / •■-j  ■ 


b/jr  A ■'  -i  • •*  Z'  ^ V 

^ .f;  •.-  *•■  , \Vi..v 

- - ■ * » ' * , ( 

i,i  r«- J ' X t 'ic'  ' * -■-  ••  ^ ■ 

• • •>  ' :/■  - :'-:-r  t;A»  ' ' ' r.  ' 

~'  , •'  ' . T. 

• ■ - .*  ■-.,  ^ -t •._*•■  ■ 'i. 

->  > J.”  * 

. i :..^  ‘v’  M'Pm  „ ■’f'P'i  ■T'\i:  '•:  '.  ■>.!'*.-f 


I 

•I,. 


' c 


■1:  xr^O 

J-.' 4 'i,:  1'^ 

...•  • » t _ t V ‘ ■ 


' ^ I 


; r^*  V' 


/ < li 


i 


■c  J ^ s;  <\1 


C vw.  A 


* • , ■ .’ 

"ic.  ■ 

f * ‘ ^ 

#i  'f^V'\V  - - ■' 


u 


tf.. 


.IaiTJ  t 


‘io  - 

* * tv  ' ‘ 


j • *iuVC>  /i 


ifil' 


f 


• T-*  - •-=r-y»^^-s«59| 


5f 

}|. 

•I: 


7 


the  most  formidable  obstruction  to  the  progress  of  injustice  and  oppression;  and 
as  it  grows  more  intelligent  and  more  intense,  it  will  be  more  and  more  formidable. 
It  may  be  silenced  by  military  power,  but  it  cannot  be  conquered.  It  is  elastic, 
irrepressible,  and  invulnerable  to  the  weapons  of  ordinary  wairfare.  It  is  — im- 
passable, inextinguishable  enemy  of  mere  violence  and  arbitrary  rule  — ",  Until 
this  be  propitiated  or  satisfied,  it  is  vain  for  power  to  talk  either  of  triun^hs 
or  repose,  — we  have  seen  the  vanity  of  all  triun^jhs  in  a cause  which  violates 
the  general  sense  of  Justice  of  the  civilized  world.  It  is  nothing  that  — an  un- 
happy and  prostrate  nation  has  fallen  — ''There  is  an  enemy  that  still  exists  to 
check  the  glory  of  these  triumphs.  It  follows  the  conqueror  back  to  the  very 
scene  of  his  ovations;  — it  shows  him  that  the  sceptre  of  his  victory  is  a barren 
sceptre  — it  — shall  smoulder  to  dry  ashes  in  his  grasp."  Thus  is  futile  any 
victory  that  has  "outraged  the  opinion  of  mankind."^ 

And  he  proceeded  to  say  that  in  his  opinion  Spain  since  gaining  the  sup- 
port of  universal  public  opinion,  although  filled  with  the  victorious  troops  of 
Franco,  had  made  progress  toward  the  establishment  of  free  institutions. 

Again  he  stated  the  superior  power  of  this  sanction  which  "will  return 
with  awful  retribution  upon  the  heads  of  — violators  of  national  law."  "Nor  let 
anyone  imagine  that  mere  force  can  subdue  the  general  sentiment  of  mankind.  It  is 
more  likely  to  diffuse  that  sentiment,  and  destroy  the  power.”  "When  national  law 
is  violated,"  he  exclaimed,  "then  thrones  and  principalities,  and  powers,  must 
look  out  for  the  consequences."^ 

"Public  opinion"  he  declared,  "is  not  only  very  po'werful,  but  in  ray  es- 
timation, at  least,  is  making  great  progress".® 

^Hev.  in  Greece,  Works  vol.  77, 

®V/orks.  vol.  IV,  p.313. 

^Works,  vol.  XIII,  p.461. 


..JSi/ 


■K-  II 


i\rr,»  ; ,:ol  •.  ' ‘ - 

' ' i;  JU-(,rtX  ac.^oa'vv  vJ  .’ 

..J  if 

f in'^ol 

. ■■ ..  - 

i.-  i 

4 

■ • •» 

. • r,  r-i  /: 

V ■*  ‘ 

t'vt 


: ,.  Vi'  I'.?-;  f-r.  .■'i  vr  ' ? 

I 

. J ■ ,,  . . ^ ^ > •'  ' \ 


: t-t.  i * J n-:  iz^.  t- X^i  r.  .‘ipq 

. , J'  .'  *.v 


7 


-li; 


. ; ..  '.  i . . . * . . ;.  *VJ^.  :j- :.'  *’ 

..  V * • *’ " ue.rv';  ( / 

.-v',  .Tit:  :y  'tf.'IB.lptTs’O  ^ l.*'  ■ 

■:  v:rVv  .■.•i...-  V-  ''  -A  - '--t-' 


»’  ■ 


c r.dV: 


T.;  -K 

•t  BiiiL«« 


.•j:'3  liX-fide  ' 


li; 


'■'*  -U  ';/  i‘ 


'»•*  , ’■'*t  I; 

. V ' ^' 


■ ■-'  • t.  : J . .i-',  / 9.^  ■ 

V ' ‘ ■ • • 

4 

... ; iw # ■.'•'4 i "p : '^.or  ■.'  >•;•  ••:<>  'i>»-vq,  4*^ 

; ■ .’.  . .-,  '•*  Vo  wf*  j si 

' ■'  - - ' •'  ■'  ‘Ji'r 


;Ttti  t(;  lT43'i 


'*’  7 V 7 


-“Cl 


',•{.,  :r»,Ti.'' .. ...  Xi  ivij  .- ..li '■ 


;i.^ 


.*:  *■'  ? ;■ ■ , 


•91’  \juj  ui  -V; 

7 . . 


' ' ^ , t'.'vr ‘ »v\».  .'▼i^  .wy. 

; . h t ■ .y  ^ r »• 

• . ' y-.v*.  •■  y. 


*1  ' t 


("■.  > 


a ■ 


8 

But  international  law  is  defended  not  by  public  opinion  alone,  but  also 
by  the  right  - which  may  become  the  duty  - of  foreign  states  forcibly  * to  inter- 
fere and  see  that  its  violation  be  discontinued.  In  a letter  to  the  American 
representative  at  Mexico^  he  declared  apropos  of  violation  of  national  law  govern- 
ing the  treatment  of  prisoners:  "Indeed,  although  the  rights  or  the  safety  of  none 
of  their  own  citizens  were  concerned,  yet  if,  in  a war  waged  between  two  neighbor- 
ing states,  the  killing,  enslaving,  or  cruelly  treating  of  prisoners  should  be  in- 
dulged in,  the  United  States  would  feel  it  to  be  their  duty,  as  well  as  their 
right,  to  remonstrate  and  to  Interfere  against  such  a departure  from  the  princi- 
ples of  humanity  and  civilization.  These  principles  are  comnwn  principles,  essen- 
tial alike  to  the  welfare  of  all  nations,  and  in  the  preservation  of  which  all 
nations  have,  therefore,  rights  and  Interests.  But  their  duty  to  Interfere  be- 
comes imperative  in  cases  affecting  their  own  citizens." 

This  last  sentence  strongly  suggests  the  opinion  that  in  other  cases  the 
performance  of  the  "duty"  of  intervention  was  entirely  optional.  It  was  neverthe- 
less an  extraordinary  doctrine,  stated  with  extraordinary  emphasis,  for  the  middle 
of  the  nineteenth  century  (1842)  and  for  so  circumspect  a statesman  as  Tfr.  Webster. 

He  was  too  lawyerly  and  practical  a statesman  to  state  his  theory  of  the 
allegiance  of  all  nations  to  international  law  without  ever  making  any  qualificar- 
tlons.  But  the  qualifications,  it  seems  to  me,  are  chiefly  notable  for  their  few- 
ness, and  relative  insignificance;  they  are  quite  uninportant  when  compared  with 
the  numerous  far-reaching  provisions  of  national  law  which  he  recognized,^ 

As  a nation  entered  the  family  of  civilized  states  on  the  condition  of 

^It  is  more  or  less  customary,  with  some  people  to  value  such  statements  according 
to  the  power  of  the  nation  to  which  it  is  addressed.  It  is  perhaps  significant 
that  such  a declaration  was  never  addressed  to  any  European  state,  although  there 
was  according  to  llbc,  Webster's  own  theory,  plenty  of  occasion  for  it, 

2see  pp.  of  this  paper. 


. :-‘Cit'.  ‘ 


,,.4.  ^ - ,e.it. 

,.:'  y£«^- 


VC 


Mfc  .T^i 


:^t  v.>ic : r.  i ■'vni'"  i .5  -i Jc.r:  J) 

' B. , 

- td  r \'-'^  jr  I'.t  ^ 

■ ■* ' I *'  / ' ‘ * 

' ■■■■  ■}.'  »:  ^:1  y": 


, ^ 

i . ■ . . ' ' 


•>  :-  ' ’ .'.'t/r  ‘Vc  /< ; r>  ^\'  '•  ' : t ' 'V  •» 

^ ^ < 

;.  •■y:'!::  . :>U  ■'iv'  ' V.:  v»  :;'•.  , '- 

.'<vj  ' “»/-■»♦  •-■^  .Vi.' , 

-V  Ufj^h  ■ : vS-.fV5.T- 

■'•  ;.  ,',-V <.»•-•  ,'fu  f'«fi  • ■ "*■•  f i*-' 

:.d.:  .^;^v  e.'  : *r;V:->f  .*  - ^ •^Trt't’fc '.fti 


•je. 

I 


I 


♦ ; : 1 

- vis  > •'' 


C-iCV;:  W n^nIVi^  Tl'^-  "i 


ii 


, • • , ‘ fe^ir^jjr  V"  •'  ■' 

■ ■ ''  U 

KkJi*':'''  .:v  ’ ti'^-  Ij 


-V  ■ -:>'-.i;r. 


* fr.=»  ..->hx  ■ ; ,i.--T 


k.  . N 


1 ''  .t"  ' 


I : : i 


j ip  ':p'V  • 

.'  ';  T'.'Ljr  a*.'  3’ 


'.-V.'--,  ^ dt9|  

• . , -T.-W  1 .'i  yf' 

'T  »,  ;.y  " . . i . a ,:v#)r?  f i.*a..!.: 


. :ii.. •',)!■:  y «jt 

.>>,cr  .'  V,  .'1.7a  .' 


»r 


' ' i / V 

fsm-  . ..  V .;  V,  V..  / *:s 


fs.' 


( 


* '•  :4*‘. 


; . ' : \ne  .>J  >■•  -U 

f 

i *rl^vrfJ 

j ' -^<v;  r.  ■ ' C 

■'  •-.  />,-r  Qf‘  '•’.^I  i/.i.'.v  iO'V. *.'’  1'.- 

^ ^ ,*;■.  i ‘-iiJ  '^’3  Vjw  U ^ » .'•'1-'  *i’3  U f’*4  • 


t..:  ..'  ..  . . 

... ‘t-3C,C  9 . ‘f}  -■' 

cn 

;, ) ^.'1'.  .•■'■  :lr. 

/.;  ■ J 

T;  • /.  ' 

> -.;!V 

.J 

'•«,  j7i’;'T'2tv  Iv 

t>^  ..  ;*'-vV  • ’>•:. 

/ 

4 

. J 

•.•r  :r...‘  »•.  i-fiw  . •*• 

■ t • • - a 

. 1 

{ 

i 

i,W. *-'’ 

. . i-'ti'w r;-cnl  w.'v 

-■ . , 

. t ; 


.“'vJ  ' ,.'  ^ .V 

.V  .'7i 


j .V' .'i,'.' !••  . wfV*  . - « •■  - 

• r.i  'i  i;  ‘ d . ■'■.  ,':  ■ 

;.  • - ' 1.'  • *.  HS3,:j.;; 

X.  . , V ■•'':•■. - .-^'‘:r-4  r’l 

M .'  i.v 


• 1 2 


I 

t 


9 


becoming  bonnd  to  observe  the  laws  which  regulated  their  intercourse;  so,  converse- 
ly, a state  might  indeed  escape  the  necessity  of  giving  its  activity  in  accordance 
with  their  provisions,  but  only  by  withdrawing  from  the  circle  of  civilized  nations 

(5M 

avowing  Itself  to  be  an  "©ttt»of*the-law"f  and  undergoU^^  the  unbearable  handicaps 
of  such  a position.  Webster  naturally  does  not  discuss  this  impossible  procedure 
at  length,  but  he  clearly  indicates  it  as  the  only  means  of  escape.^  This  is,  in- 
deed, not  much  of  a qualification. 

He  made  possible  a more  in^sortant  qualification  in  writing  that  the  ex- 
tent of  certain  ri^ts  held  under  the  law  of  nations  ”is  a question  to  be  Judged 
of  by  the  circumstances  of  each  individual  case";  and,  of  course,  it  cannot  be  of 
very  great  use  in  settling  disputes,  since  each  party  will  probably  have  a differ- 
ent view  of  the  law,  for  they  will  almost  certainly  have  different  views  of  the 
significance  of  the  circumstances.  But  this  qualification  also  , so  far  as  I can 
see,  is  important  only  as  it  seems  to  eri^hasize  our  appreciation  of  the  fact  that 
in  general  international  law  as  viewed  by  Webster  was  immutable  and  inclusive,  as 
well  818  inviolable.  It  was  not  confined  to  the  regulation  of  a few  technical  pur- 
suits, but  it  had  provisions  controlling  all  the  most  important  activities  of  na- 
tions; and  it  was  not  a hazy,  or  intricate,  series  of  complications  for  a few  law- 
yers to  argue  about,  but  general  and  easily  enough  to  be  conprehended  for  the 
masses  of  population  to  understand  it,  and  give  it  vigor  by  their  belief  in  it. 

And  in  gsneral  its  provisions  were  unaltered  by  the  power  or  weakness  of  the  na- 
tions sugject  to  it,  or  their  interests  or  circumstances.  It  was  not  to  be  re- 
garded as  terminated  by  the  exigencies  of  war.  On  the  contrary,  many  of  its  pro- 
visions "are  provided  especially  for  the  contingency  of  war"  and  there  are  various 
kinds  of  engagements  which  are  "in  the  nature  of  perpetual  obligations."^ 

^Works,  vol.  XI,  p.  309  (Creole  arc)  and  vol.  IV,  p.  212. 

2 

Works,  vol.  XIV,  Appendix  p.630. 


i 


^ * 


j . 'V  7 


'.  «<  \ jon 


■A  y -:r~  .,'v it -V  i> 


iWJfcS'Stf'.  i- 'T f '■  t'? ^ '■, '*  i ■' ‘r.’^  t *■  •'  - ^ i^4i' ''Vt’' 


er-  zi.-  -vu'  '.‘I'i  V'-  v^-*  • 


. ■■■''£■  -’rr.-,-  »'  ;.,.C30*»»JC.flX.'  *>f  ■ i"~. 

• ' * Pj.C''*'' '' 


. >4->v ' ^ ^ > >1 


. : 


/Ts”'  cer^sR- ' ;.:r:  ' . ’ 

: » :J  ‘ ; ,:i^fr:,';  tjI..-  'p.'  v-S  i 


'.'  J'’  . *I,j j •'rr-'':  * v-'^'  • 

r.  S't:  .'.’ 


• .?  ■ 


f ‘ T .■  *-'i  <'  ' • • •* 

■ r.  .• 

*>4,  ...  . 


-r.'.f'  Cxf-'  v.ArfiJ  ■ ‘f- 


• ••  "■  . . 


I r. 


biul4''A:-:  -V 


k, 


•« 


■ 


'TV’  ?. 


I 


, V**  ra  ^'■‘  'lot,  r M .«  ..  * ^ ' '* 


“io  r.''''' 


‘ X. .'in/p'’  " !?■««»/!*•  •:'!]:?  . 

* • ' a 


' 4 


■Ih  4 'l  ii:  ' '.’•i^<-V 


'■  -•  ''^sr^T=‘  ' ' 

• J ■-  <l 

I...  -j.\*  *9^  j; 


:T.:  • .I"  ' -1  x-’:.  sV::/:'  y:;.  i .'f*5\xyT 


■■■5i 


’Is- 3 .ai* 


'■  i 


. * I * 


' ■ ' : ^v‘ 


r ‘ 


i'.  ' IV  A“:  'inX  .. 'i;  X 


• ? I r*^  »•  » f .*  /' 

^ ^ V*  A.<  • i.  7*»  ‘ ♦ .*'*'.  ■ ■ '_*.y-  . . 

j f i "'’A'  'I'C  -i'.  i:'->  i.*.".  .ri:^  2*  '.r'  ••  ■■' 1'-r‘  ’1 

'*  * Va  .' Viror.  s'?  .'.>■  ••'.  i ,.1'^~:.  islTi  ‘:s'Cto»  .'V’''i''T 

:•  -Y  a 'rr^  ,.v  . ■:  x*  ?SJ  i J 

-•  '•■  'f  f fv  ^- ■ a-  ->fs  . ' 

-.-  u''*^A-4^  X-  ' .^.•■•'  ■ 

cn  ''c.i  -lul  r xe  ' • ■•  •^  - 


sX!i?Ki  , : -.  • Is 


'fi 

L Si^ 


) - 


F 

n 


\ 


I 

I 


. . = ' •? an^ter' ' .^n  ii 

f . • 

^ ' . :\r.  -T>':  ' :■  ari^Uiy^  ■ ' ■'  ■.■•i*r*-  ^ ~ rx 


. ,/r  ,J-1 

, . (ft  ■■->  v' 

..•  r r S •»  , 'J  •>  .'•*  c *,1  -T  . ' 


**  ».  Y A 


9 l;:u 


L 


- -s,-.  r * 


9 


10 


2.  National  Individuality  and  Non-interference 
While  all  nations  are  subject  to  national  law,  the  doctrine  of  national 
sovereignty,  and  the  ri^t  of  each  state  to  complete  independence  from  interfer- 
ence by  any  other  power  so  long  as  its  acts  were  legal,  was  fully  recognized  by 
Webster.  Although  modem  conditions  had  placed  nations  in  closer  contact  with  one 
another,  and  although  moral  influences  and  a coimon  public  opinion  bound  them  in 
pome  measure  together,  each  was  to  fulfill  its  own  destiny,  develop  its  own  insti- 
tutions and  express  its  own  individuality  in  its  own  way  in  accordance  with  its 
own  preferences  without  the  slightest  hindrance  from  any  other  nation,  Itforeover, 
however,  little  neighboring  nations  might  like  the  methods  of  a state,  they  had  no 
rlg^t  on  that  account  to  withhold  diplomatic  or  other  coninunication  with  them. 
JMthough  Webster  felt  that  one  country  might  by  power  of  example  benefit  its  fdl- 
low-nations,  and  although  he  was  eager  that  the  United  States  share  the  commercial 
adveuitages  that  resulted  from  securing  privileges  in  the  orient,  there  seems 
to  have  been  no  such  theory  as  "the  white-man’s  burden"  in  his  thinking.  On  the 
contreury  every  pov/er, however  weak  or  backw8u:^i,  shares  this  right  of  "civil  equali- 
ty" among  the  nations  of  the  world.  He  felt  it  to  be  the  duty  of  states  that  dif- 
fered in  their  po liti cal ^ legal  or  social  arrangements  to  tolerate  each  other 

I 

peaceably,  and  without  any  endeavor  forceably  to  alter  each  others  institutions, 

V* 

and  to~jCOJfttinue  friendly  intercourse. 

In  a letter  to  the  American  minister  at  London  he  expresses  this  view, 
and  also  states  the  relationship  of  the  comnon  bond  of  international  law  to  na- 
tional individualism.  " — the  intercourse  of  nations  has  become  more  and  more  in- 
dependent of  different  forms  of  government,  and  different  systems  of  law  or  relig- 
ion, It  is  not  now,  as  it  was  in  ancient  times,  that  every  foreigier  is  consid- 
ered as  therefore  an  enemy,  and  that,  as  soon  as  he  comes  into  the  country,  he  may 
be  lawfully  treated  as  a slave;  nor  is  the  modem  intercourse  of  states  carried  on 


M^<l!y>M^ili>mi'n!0>ifcgti 


Jv 


#JL'  ,w;'' 

“ «» 
r 


. « >•■•  • , ->,••'  ■■.  v-ra  .V  ';••  V ■ V 

B®  1^.  ■‘^\  . ' ' ■ , ^v;3  . ' 1^.  ..Jo.* 


^r 


I ' '“^'  ■ “ ‘ .J„  '...  ^ ■ J ’ 

t , i4Ji: 


' “v  ^‘.MU-- 


»?o«  i^oa<  *«co«ti  lu^  »a6iJ4*jS'.l^v'i»v^o*xWr.i 

■•'  ■ ■■  r.  -i.  ' ^-  ' • '*  * . vv 


y 

t-n^i 


* 


— •»»«  , g_r  I.**"!!  • ,i' !, 


11 


mainly,  or  at  all,  for  the  pxirpose  of  iitposing,  by  one  nation  on  another,  new 
forms  of  civil  government,  nev/  rules  of  property,  or  new  modes  of  doraestic  regula- 
tion. The  great  communities  of  ths  world  are  regarded  as  wholly  independent,  each 
entitled  to  maintain  its  ovm  system  of  law  and  government,  while  all  in  their  mu- 
tual intercourse,  are  understood  to  submit  to  the  established  rules  and  principles 
governing  such  intercourse.  And  the  perfecting  of  this  system  of  intercourse 
among  nations  requires  the  strictest  application  of  the  doctrine  of  non-interven- 
tion of  any  with  the  domestic  concerns  of  others. 

His  strenuous  objection  to  the  principles  enumerated  by  the  "Holy  Alli- 
ance" was  on  the  ground  that  it  controverted  this  doctrine  of  "non-interference 

Q 2 

and  mutual  abstinence  from  anything  affecting  each  other's  domestic  regulations". 

The  "objectionable  principle  avowed  in  these  papers,"  he  said  "is  the  ri^t  of 
forcible  intervention  in  the  affairs  of  other  states."® 

**  There  cannot,  as  I think,  be  conceived  a more  flagrant  violation  of  pub- 
lic law,  or  national  independance , than  is  contained  in  this  short  declaration." — 
I want  words  to  express  my  abhorrence  of  this  abominable  principle.  — A survey 
of  the  principles  against  which  he  prote^^ted  serves  to  make  his  own  stand  more 

A 

clear, 

"Bringing  the  power  of  all  governments  to  bear  against  all  subjects. 

a sort  of  — quadruple  or  quintriple  — allegiance"®  was  Just  the  opposite  of 

Webster's  idea  of  the  legal  rule.  The  Russian  Emperor  had  said  that  there  should 

"no  longer  be  such  a thing  as  an  Baglish ^French,  Russian,  Prussian,  or  Austrian 
policy;  there  is  henceforth  but  one  policy  — for  the  safety  of  all  — ".  This 
meant  that  " — the  authority  of  all  government  was  to  be  mixed  and  blended. " 

^Letter  to  Edward  Everett,  Jan.  29,  1842.  Works,  vol.  XIV,  p.  379. 

®Ibid,  p.  380. 

A ri^t  to  control  notions  in  their  desire  to  change  their  own  goverrjnent  is 
plainly  asserted  - and  to  take  a hostile  attitude  in  regard  to  those  states  in 
which  the  overthrow  of  the  government  may  operate  as  an  example. 

^Works,  vol.  V,  p.  71.  ®Ibid.  u.  72.  _ 


‘.ti,  ’JiVt  . '•' ~ i -'  fl--l 


£j  • . •.  , t ;-.-c'.  i '*." . 

• , .’•  J •*,•'  ■ ^ ' - 

1, 

*;v  , ‘ .' ili  '{.liC;'.'  ’ t^&U'f^i:  ■ ' t ’"•  -X'JC'/  t^f» 

.'.tijItSf,  ai  ^ '".  i.  ■■■  I -r^!»»i¥.»t‘i'>*’‘>''v  ->  ^ • '- 

••• 

^.-.'Tf/OO^XC-'.-'-.^i  ■'/': 


■rc-i'ri 


. .1 
H 


• V . -f  ^ ^ » ► 


f, 

to 


u 


rtf 


^-  ■ . i-/. . , (i*«f  1 . j: 

t’  , / :7.'.:i*j  ^ t . i f ‘ ■' 


.w 


T,i.-^.nr!  i ft-.''  ■■.-■' 


7JC- 


••:.4.il.**.--  ' ::.ry>i-xf  ■ r^Jt  ■■  ■/f•^ 


,.-  - ..'  S^aar- 


i : ■:  '.t; 


- 1 


' ' ’ i .'i.  ■ - 7:,'  7?  I.;u  .-t-lf>'i  ' *'’  ' . v%  i/Uii 


■ N 


SRSCi^  i '.? 


C-Di':  I ' llV'*  ’1 

!,  ^ ! 


u iTf';-  v:-'-  cr .? '•  i .lii'io'o:'..  cTf^  .fi 

■ : ' ■■  -'  ' . r-. 

V . ■■  ■:  - •»  ^ ; i.ii;.;v7U  - ;n:i  t ^ j; 

-Q.rr^l^  tc.:.  • ;*'  i : ■ ,c^iT 


V'  'i  ,0  TS'-  -^  ■.'  ' -T  i-i(  vi 

V, 

t;  oi?^'  ^ 'Ttir' ; ■ ? iU  ■:  .’  -•  '•  -•  ■ • > 

--v,cH  A , .r”-  . ‘ o''- . • iriix:* 

. = 4-  ■ ..' - .'  *.  ^-1  ^ ■ 


: ' ' -.  (i 


f! 


i *»«.■-* V -r'N.  ■►>,■•  ^ t 


e'  tv  v'-iit  (,f..  •' filtC'  fTi^''''  T|j 

■-k 


'TSt-  ii'-i'-:  I ' ••  i- 

. i '♦ 


r ■• 


■f 


•>'X  *7 ■<<  ; *'paf  ' - ■• 

.'7(Mir  i:-"  ^■4iS  * - .,.  -V. » 

! Jni■'r^^*JBy'.  •!  ■•  , •.' i-' ' ' -'^'  ■■  t. 

I •*>  I*  A ^ « . * - , ^ . *v  \‘*n  • ^ V‘ 

.■•■■lu^ii  ’'V  i V - ■ - '•■' 


1 , > f..  ^ J-; 


' U'J 


4 Csi*  ■-»' 

'^'  . ■ . 
p i,  -i  .v;£iri"  co'’  ti 


A 1-lC.  <fj 


- » 


. 7 ' 


r-'  I 

*•  V* 


#»J  r;'>c: 


T *.".£<  !si«i 
17  ' r-fj  ...  (I  . 


U! 


12 

”The  asserted  right  of  forcible  Irxtervention  In  the  affairs  of  other 
nations  is  in  open  violation  of  the  public  law  of  the  world  — the  whole 
world  expected  to  acquiesce  in  principles  which  entirely  subvert  the  independence 

of  nations , 

' T6 

In  a letter  to  itabassador  W.  C.  Rives^Wsbster  again  recognizes  the 
"principle  — that  every  nation  possesses  a ri^t  to  govern  itself  according  to 
its  own  will,  to  change  its  institutions  at  discretion,  and  to  transact  its  busi- 
ness through  whatever  agents  it  may  think  proper  to  employ"  by  instructing  him  to 
re-ognize  the  new  French  government.  For  although  — "the  overthrow  of  the  Repub- 
lican constitution  of  French is  deeply  to  be  deplored,  because,  however  inper- 

fect  its  structure,  it  was  the  onlygreat  Republican  government  existing  in  Europe, 
and  all  Americans  wished  it  success;"  it  was^his  plain  duty  to  recognize  the  new 
govenanent ,\the  French  nation  desired  it  - it  was  beyond  our  sphere  of  legitimate 
action  to  try  to  alter  their  form  of  government,  however  contrary  it  mig^t  be  to 
our  ideals  and  our  wishes  for  them.  "While  we  deeply  regret  the  overthrow  of  pop- 
ular institutions"  yet  "we  have  no  choice  but  to  acknowledge"  the  new  form  of 
government,  for  "we  are  bound  to  leave  to  her  the  choice  of  means  for  the  promo- 
tion of"  "her  prosperity  and  happiness."  The  past  policy  of  the  United  States  in 
having  successively  recognized  all  the  various  governments  established  in  succes- 
sion by  Prance’s  series  of  revolutions,  he  cited  as  the  proper  procedure. 

This  theory  of  national  individuality  was  a part  of  his  grounds  of  ob- 
jection to  the  policy  of  England  in  both  Creole  and  the  impressment  controversies. 
The  practice  of  England  in  both  cases  might  be  Justified  under  English  law  he  con- 


^Works,  vol.  XIV,  p.  451-2. 


J 


•V  V 


>v.  t ' . 


4 * r •* 


:i 


. . .<;.;  It;  . , 't  ^ i j '■ 


>'v i...’>^. '•■  •'f-c  s-vr^  . . ■■'  ^ a r»- 


f ■ >iS 


2 '■'  •TOrjpC.  IX-  ' J * 

...V;- •■:'■.  •■  • 2r‘»i::  ’k; 

• 

JJ: 

'■ *;76va 

' i 

• , 1 

• :/i  ,;■ 

. . ,■.•  ■ ' U, 

t ^ <w  f 

1 

*.  2 i ■'■.  •».  .i'’ 

-f  'j*i 

:;•.  'J-  .'<  : 

- ■ ■ - ' ■'■  • ■ - ■ 

1 \t  . 

%*  4 ‘ 

'iMV.,-  ; 

: \ ....  J ■ ’ 

- ■ .•‘..1/0;-^?  is 

“ 

1'  ' 'Jt' 'i  “ 

' f ■' 

# ^ . 

; ;i  , "-C 

, . ••  . . ■ ; V 

[ r^t.  1 V I 

.t;  r:  » * 

' tf  ''^~t  .4  • ■-*"  I ■ ■ ■ 

' ^ i J 

s'*’  4\ 

: tii) 

IM*H,-‘  1 -.. 

K’>-  *’:.'*!!1S. 

■■■■^'--  'j(^ 

V,  1.  • ••  -; 

•'  • . < ■ 

.•  ‘-.  V ’'■  .,  **■«? 

* 4’ 

; ^ JD«rt#  tw  «s^ 

■z-rr-ii  ; d ^ 

; '•  ,1  / ’ ' 

.■  f 1 


i ~u  mtf.rr-'-j  'V'  ‘-■C"'/''  ■'-  • 


-V«» 


•H  l' 


jr 


: ,.♦■•- '.r.:. 

- -S:  ^ ■ . F " =-  i ' 


.0  - .V  -ii;..'.  cC' 


V.' 


• ■ ■ ■*  ”i'  • • ..;•  ■ 


L''i 


'!  j -r-'i  4*rr  Ot}.  ■' '■  • -V,.'.  ■■.VC-:.:;/;  :i  ...i 


)1  • . ? >» 

V-  . . . ' .^  V. 


‘ c?#  i>7i 

• ■ t 

' rrt 


■jp-  ■ 

t"'  im  -;7S':  -^t 


a CV'.. 

.*f-yr 

a I ■ i,t  J'Jt'if.)  jsd$  iaa-.{  ^ ' 

D i : .^-i  idri-r-  ^ .■  ^ i‘- 

- ••.  ^ ■ ,.-f-.iX^  **'  < .'u'-i.  r'S*.  . 


Hj  , 


Trs;  'i 


13 

ceded,  but  the  Jurisdiction  of  a nation's  law  was  confined  to  its  own  territory, 
and  in  these  cases  only  international  law  had  Jurisdiction  to  settle  the  dispute. 
^We  do  not  consider  that  the  question  depends  at  all  on  the  state  of  British  law, 

" — Surely  the  influence  of  local  law  cannot  affect  the  relations  of  nations  in  any 

m1 

such  manner  as  this. 

"Impressment  of  Seamen  out  of  and  beyond  English  territory  is  an  inter- 
ference with  the  rights  of  other  nations;  is  further,  therefore,  than  English  pre- 
rogative can  legally  extend;  and  is  nothing  but  an  attafnpt  to  enforce  the  peculiar 
law  of  England  beyond  the  dominions  and  Jurisdiction  of  the  crown.  — A British 
cruiser  enters  an  American  merchant  vessel  — -Offering  no  Justification,  under 
the  law  of  nations,  but  claiming  the  right  under  the  law  of  England  — . This  can- 
not be  defended./  English  soil,  English  territory,  English  Jurisdiction,  is  the 
appropriate  sphere  for  tl^  operation  of  English  law.  The  ocean  is  the  sphere  of 
the  law  of  nations;  — 

Mother  Instance  in  which  W.  Webster  observed  the  "salutary  doctrine  of 
non-intervention"  is  to  be  observed  in  his  correspondence  in  regard  to  the  Sand- 
wit(ch  islands.  Ths  rights  of  small  nations  he  held  as  sacred  as  those  of  larger 

ones,  and  although  the  nearness  of  these  islands,  and  their  strategic  position,  for 
conmerce  (on  the  importance  of  which  Webster  held  the  most  pronounced  ideas)  as 
well  as  for  war,  was  fully  recognized  , by  him,  and  although  he  expressed  solici- 
tude that  the  great  interest  of  the  Ehited  States  in  maintaining  its  privileges 
there  be  not  sacrificed,  he  nevertheless  recognized  the  islands  as  ftilly  free  and 
independent  ; raised  effective  objection  to  intervention  in  a nximber  of  Instances 

^Case  of  the.  Big  Creole  - Works,  vol.  XIV,  p.  372. 

Presidential  message  written  by  Webster,  *ol.  XII,  p.  137f. 

®Sec.  of  State  to  agsnts  of  Sand.  Isl,  , vol.  XII,  p.151. 


■??? 

J. . flr;?  ■ Sf  > ” «u  ■ '- ■ ■ 

;i  -S^*l  -V.  - 


i r 


i-  i' !<•* 

•»K  » / •-'m 


. ■ .;  ••  .-j;*! ',i:i . - 

•3. 


* ' V.,  ‘ • <*1^  ‘I  '*!' 


^ .«•  f . . i 


k5- 


^ i i T -•  i.v 


T<ai  ^ ,a  i ' .*^ 
,f«  i f c.  5:X  atu: 

yl [.■''■■: r-;  r^f-— -- 


1 . 


...  : '•  ■■  ..  4 *•  ■'.-*  ‘.f-  'K  *.  UT’  S'" 

* ' r’l*''  •■  .■■  'I 

i*;  ‘ .oi  tii*' ? 


i ■ r-  ,.  ■'*' 


:■  ^v*r 


' • *1 


I ,.'f!'.f^l.%’'i-.f. '.  .Ut::-  .■■,*■"•■.■«■.’  - ^ . *'.*  'V.it 

■ ■ ^ ‘ it 


■ 7 • > 4 

*itl  < ii  tx«.«a» 


r‘ ..-■;V  '•, 
•*-»  ■•-  -I 


.^,2^-0:.  .’■  '■•l:  ■ .^'.ff.  JA^'r  ' , . o 

, if  ■ ’ " 


}■■  ; ' ■’  ' v;  I; 

, ■"  I 

..  . ' - . li 

• W *'*  *■  ' \ ■ * ^ 


'p  ' 


w •'  ^ \ * 


•7jL-.4i3'r-  c-v' 


:-i  > , ■ . ;.-  -':  . '.  • stfr.  ir'  oS -i'-i 

1 * . ..  * 

c.>  fri©:;  1.-:  ^U'-:r  : tA:n*.  ':•.  t..' 

, rf 


, r^.  . 


'•:*.  <^(  '■ 


i:*»n^*.-:  -Vi*'  . ■:.  ^ 

•■'■  ■ .:. - I 


h. 


-■-  *.‘ 


t/  'i.  (^:  ih  'it  1C  ^ Uv-:^  : 

v>'  ; i • • i:’..'i*‘V'iCv:xl  o4  ^.T*'^'-' 


i Vi 

^ fi-  ^ • 

V • ' 

V» 

.'•ir-  :.\  ■ 

'***^'. 

\i- 

.'*1,  XX)' 

> 

; r 

'ci  i . 

: 

wt«!  f ;{  ■ 

..  - 

■c;i  Hi  ■ fjc;  j' 

*:r-  j; 


- ^ 'f/^'5 


. •■•  i*  ;•  -NNa?  ': 


'f.tV 


!Wi 


v?s.«^A*.  : 1 


‘T.v . 


riSV 


14 


"by  England  and  France^,  and  when  the  Anerican  representative,  secured  a concession 

of  contingent  surrender  of  their  nationality,  he  ordered  it  to  be  returned,  and 

2 

their  independence  reaffirmed.  "In  acknowledging  the  independence  of  the  islands, 
and  of  the  government  established  over  them,  it  was  not  aiming  to  promote  any  pe- 
culiar object  of  its  own,"®  Although  Webster  declared  the  only  purpose  to  be  "the 
establishment  of  a government  at  a very  in5)0rtant  point  in  the  Pacific  Ocean,  which 
should  be  able  to  maintain  such  relations  with  the  rest  of  the  world  as  are  main- 
tained between  civilized  states,  it  is  clear  that  he  felt  this  policy  to  be  in  ac- 
cord with  the  best  interests  of  the  United  States,  One  of  his  aims  in  repeatedly 
asserting  that  the  United  States  would  not  infringe  upon  the  rights  of  Hawaii,  was 
to  give  our  country  good  grounds  upon  which  to  object  to  interference  on  the  part 
of  any  other  nation.  The  duties  of  neutrality  and  non-interference  are  not  con- 
fined to  instances  in  which  nations  and  territories  lie  adjacent  to  each  other; 
they  are  just  as  obligatory  ^^n^if  the  nations  involved  occupy  opposite  sides  of 
tl»  world.  But  the  application  of  the  principle  is  especially  necessary  in  such 
caseer  ' 

The  only  exception  to  this  principle  of  national  sovereignty  was  that 
self  defense  mi^t  conceivably  make  it  -naoee^ary  to  pursue  a foe  into  foreign  ter- 
ritory^  and  in  some  instances  even  to  interfere  with  her  domestic  affairs.^ 

The  in^jortance  which  he  felt  belonged  to  this  principle ^was  very  great 
and  justifies  its  being  regarded  as  one  of  his  fundamental  theories,  "On  the  ba- 
sis of  this  independence  has  been  reared  the  beautiful  fabric  of  international  law. 
— On  this  principle  the  great  commomvealth  of  civilized  states  has  been  hitherto 


■‘■Works,  vol.  XIV,  pp.  434;  5;  6;  8.  He  even  ordered  the  U. S.  navy  to  protect  it. 
vol.  XIV,  p.  439. 

^Letter  to  Mr.  Severence  1851.  Works,  Vol.  XIV,  p.  441. 

®Ibid,  p.  437. 

^See : Mr.  Webster  to  Mr.  Fox,  1841,  vol.  XI,  p.  255. 

®See : "Law  of  vicenage",  vol.  V,  p.  72. 


15 


uplae  Id . " 

3.  International  Corarmanity  of  Interest 
Peace,  felt  Daniel  Webster,  was  the  wisest  policy  of  nations,  except  In 
most  extraordinary  circumstances.  For  while  they  all  had  the  right  to  develop  in- 


dependently and  &»ch  seek  its  own  particular  interest  ,^'t^  often  happened  that  the 
Interest  of  one  was  achievedxby  the  same  meani^-b^  which  the,  InteresVof  another 
was  attained,’  similarly,  the  int^reets  of  several  nations  mi^t  be  forfeited  by 
the  same  process. 

The  prosperity  of  the  country  he  ascribed  to  the  long  continued  peace*, 
and  the  fact  that  the  competition  of  nations  was  confined  to  their  own  improvement 
and  the  advancement  of  their  interests. 

Differences  in  products  made  it  to  the  mutual  advantage  of  nations  to 
maintain  continued  and  peaceful  trade, ^ 

Mutual  agreements  for  the  regulation  of  intercourse  aided  all  concerned, 
whereas  retaliation  and  "countervailing"  w^  equally  inelusive  in  its  Injurlous- 

neas.2 


/ 

'2 

u 

r 


The  commercial  bonds  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  he  de- 
scribed as  being  particularly  strong.  While  the  United  States  continues  to  Import 

British  commodities,  it  is  evidently  to  the  interest  of  England  that  her  customers 
increase 

both  in  numbers  and  the  ability  to  buy  and  consume  her  products.  On  the  other 
» hand  every  intelligent  person  in  America  sees,  not  only  the  evils  which  would  en- 
sue from  any  Interruption  of  the  harmony  existing  between  the  two  countries,  but 
the  embarrassments  also  which  must  be  felt  in  America,  whenever  any  disasters  oc- 
cur sufficient  to  damage  the  general  prosperous  course  of  trade  and  business  in 
England. " 


^Works,  Vol.  XIII,  p.  153-7. 
^Ibid,  p.  159. 


~,?v 


{el  J7..";'-  :r'ft 


s 


vcKgtf  ^ i" 


«ljf'*f 


•■•;  V 

i' 


I' ' 


•('  • f ‘ ■ 'U  .'K..'>- 


I 


% 


I 


t' 


V- 

'v  I 


J Cl. 


':^C  ' ?■ 


li'  '%  •■■r'i 

' ''"'tiJ  i:«. 'Vr',V  t'r''  *-'.r>c'l!c  . /-vi-  “ , . .vi  iir: 


i'-.  v t:  . , 

V ■ . I ;• . :t'- 1 \ 


w; 


jy.i- 

t- ■’  'c.  "-:“i  ' J'- 


■ a 

ar:  -'  V.  { A . -AS  ^ 


• ^ ,T‘ 


j-'.  vt-VAiii^a 

/ . . ‘ , ■-.  . 

r / • ; • . . 

y ,.,  ■ ■•  ’•  ‘ ' • 

cfa  ■■  ’■  .'-*  •w*>  A'  -Ttiq,  «»■•;■  ' ,jr>v^  ■ 

' af' 


y > 


f 

I*. 

r - /! 


1 ■ 


V'^''  •' 


«»4%  4H\  • 


. >^  ' '■  f ■ 


';•./■■?  j'i’ 


|Pr>P  ■-. 


Be 

V f O . -t  4 


•'■t 

f 


,:  r':  a i->n  v*  / ■ * 

V . 


..:f 


•;  J ••  ■ 


\.  ft  .i  S) 


i. 


. :./  vv  w'.3  i . -i'A.  ■'  ■ , ' *•  •.  ■ V . ■ •..  • j 

-•  fii  «fV.:..s*icAi-  \*lfi^p'9  "i  ...?i:'f^y- a 3^j;  aa^«rfv#  } 


•■  tL 


‘ - V*:  ::u  ,t,».'j 

^ Cl . n-'i  f A'if.t  *r.x  s «,';■-/  ■'  ■■' 


,.  -t  .; 

r.‘  »D«n' 


. I 


. . !'  ?•■; 


,'.C  •■  . ,0>r'd  ' jl 

. ' ■ f! 

9.  . .'•  .'tJa  ,'7A?f  :..l''ihq  j 


,'  f 


:.,'  \r^  ■ 


. ■ ■ i 'i*!'' 


5;  -•.;'jr:  i .K>i . 


/ M 


*"  U :,A» 


v.‘»  7^:  J 


.’  .t>ir 

' ~r't 


. J.  » ■ 


• W.  7 '■  . ' 


I 1^:.  .ir;. 


• ■ •* 


7 .V:J 


';-ij  • ■ v._.'  irv*'  ^ 


r' ' 

. 


4^ 


16 

He  mentions  other  causes  which  "necessarily  cause  any  embarrassment 
which  may  be  felt  in  one  (country)  to  be  extended  to  the  other. 

"Let  us  hope"  he  says,  " — that  between  two  nations connected  by 

three  mutual  ties  of  interest,  nothing  may  ever  exist  but  peace  and  harmony."^ 

"In  matters  of  commercial  intercourse  it  is  difference  of  climate,  of 
soil,  of  products,  of  habits,  that  really  unites  states.  It  is  this  very  differ- 
ence that  gives  them  an  identity  of  interest  in  one  respect:  that  is,  the  mutual 
exchange  of  commodities."  While  we  enjoy  the  coffee  and  sugar  of  Brazil;  Brazil- 
ians use  American  flour  and  bacon.  The  economic  world  is  an  organic  whole,  and  to 
some  degree,  the  welfare  of  a part  is  the  same  thing  as  the  welfare  of  the  whole.® 
Nations  - especially  neighboring  each  other  - should  look  forward  to 
cases  of  friction  and  co-operate  to  prevent  them  in  so  far  as  possible,  and  when 
they  arise  not  give  way  to  excitement,  but  avoiding  war,  calmly  come  to  a settle- 
ment, In  cases  where  nations  are  separated  by  long  stretches  of  frontier  "irregu- 
larities, violences  and  conflicts"  are  to  be  anticipated;  and  should  be  looked  upon 
as  inevitable  consequences;  no  grounds  for  precipitate  action.^ 


^See  Vol.  XII,  p.  215. 

^Ibid,  p.  216. 

^Speech  at  Baltimore,  Vol.  XIII,  pp.  162,3. 
^See  Vol.  II,  p.  256. 


,'T/Vf 


'y.m-9>.Jf^'’T''’^^^ 


*: 
'fii 


|kjpr'  r".  • ^ 

-Vite . fcitU4^.  d&i(>  « 2^'  ♦<«♦  # i 

’•■  »!».■,;•!:'  >*•  "i*.  ‘i « •.•■!>;)  .I^n.ai 

’.'  • 1JI'  .':c-  , ?-  i;  ;y.,;  '^™||^.— 


^.:  . 5-  f,:  :i  . ,f^  'i 


.'10^  ■ "'■»’  ■ ■•.  ■-"■'■' '■fe.j 

I fc",.:  . Vr  ' * " 

-iM'sS  mJt'-  ''‘-1;«u  o»r,  c.lirf>i  ■ V©^.-ii3k''-att^ 

^ h:'  T ' ■ .:  f’^  ■ ' ,iK  , .'•  ' ' ' 


'wi  »<ft.-7?I''^‘, . 

, '.  vr>.-  I *.V  -V'  »f^  ■ 

'ni9in-)(66%n^  n#f,twXo2r 

»'  ■ '-  , , , ®,:  ^:iS'..'V'''  . :?j;'" 

. , ' » sbllHiv^Hw'  *^4'’  * -.  ^ rl^ 


\ ‘'^  n!-. ' ' '’^  „'.  . Vi  -j 


^‘j2 


r T a'  '.^V 


4*  * ^ 


Ts " 'v^’S  " ",w 

.,  * '■>/''' f‘  CVf'‘  ■‘^■‘  ' ■> 

, ' .OTl?!  ■'' 
> • ■ ;» 


.©■ 


■/  V 


,.  ff : 


y 


1 , ,-!t£  .<('  .,nj(^i 

_ .'  |yI  -'f^'  f 

" . 7q  , xiXJC  ' S»^  ii  f^rtH 


ir 


,3fS  .c  ,jI  . 


r.o.., 


' I .Vi 


17 

III,  Specific  Rules  of  International  Law. 

1.  Rules  of  Warfare 

l)  Combatants  and  non-combatants.  This  distinction  which  in  1899  received 
definite  recognition  by  the  chief  states  of  the  world  was  insisted  upon  by  Webster 
in  1842.  Mexico  held  in  that  year  a number  of  Americans  as  prisoners.  Our  Secre- 
tary of  State  demanded  that  their  condition  be  carefully  examined  and  such  as  had 
been  traders,  travellers,  men  of  letters,  and  so  forth,  should  be  released,  and 
not  subjected  to  the  treatment  of  prisoners  of  war.^ 

Non-combatants,  he  insisted,  ware  not  subject  to  being  made  prisoners  of 
war.  He  did  not  stop  ’/vith  this  assertion  but  declared  that  "every  person  found  in 
the  train  of  an  army  is  not  to  be  considered  as  therefore  a belligerent  or  an  ene- 
my." There  are  inevitably  large  numbers,  or  traders,  assistants  and  even  mere 
envious  travellers  who  would  be  made  unjustly  liable  to  capture  but  for  this  pro- 
vision, he  said. 

A belligerent  he  defined  as  one  "commissioned  or  enrolled  for  — raili- 
taury  service"  and  "being  armed,  was  in  the  pay  of  that  government." 

The  fact  that  a man  carried  arms  in  the  region  of  hostilities  was  not  to 
be  talsen  as  proof  of  his  belli ^rency.  Although  he  conceded  that  the  general  prac- 
tice of  modem  nations  raised  a presumption  of  hostile  character  under  these  cir- 
cumstances; still  it  was  but  a presunption  and  until  the  armed  person  is  shown  to 
have  purposes  other  than  mere  defense,  or  hunting,  etc.,  he  is  not  to  be  regarded 
as  a combatant,  even  though  he  be  taken  in  the  train  of  the  hostile  army. 2 

2)  Today  there  are  a number  of  well  established  rules  governing  the  treat- 
ment of  prisoners  of  war.  Webster  dohbtless  made  some  contribution  to  the  growth 

^Works,  Vol.  XII,  p.  113. 

^See  Vol.  XII,  p.  101. 


iv.r  ' .nTv  ■'  ’*■  '■  ■ 

ts 


fc 


» . ....  ._j :_  _ . * 


i:x^ 


I \. 


.;^e.l  Tt  '.v.i^^^'T'e^ii't  *io.  .XTJ 

j,  , ■•  « '■  a,  :5I-  ■ ,.  ' Au  ‘ V- ••  .w  . ■ .« 

:trl  as4iis?:  04/ir^-^J  (i  ^ | 

\ ' ' , ' "Tr  . ~ *^*  ■ ■ , _ . *1 

iAM  tab  tft  liHvt  k\-  '1 

far''  * ■ ' ' '■  ^ ^ - - ■ ' ■ .'*'^  ylufi  ' 


■•  ■^■^'  '.-  %<.1I«1  ;■  . ' 1:  " S/  . ’ ^,  ’ ■■  '-i 


mmm 


¥ 


j ^ . _.  . -L  i ^ ' I , , <»3||'^ 

! ^4  ^c^ijky^  * ''“' 

■ j.  ir-^'  V'*-  ■ f';.-  " li 


I ?*>*  . AA  ■''/’  1 \ C 

it.  , ' iSf»'-  m-j  . wt.^j  i .»r  "' 

*r?-^  i«n^t  .‘ts;  k.  ^^  W- 

iL’  i ^ '--^  '.  ' /'■■  ' . ^%em 

HPit'’  '■'  ■'■  r.-.''-  .,V'-  . 

.M  to»-#*.,,*,»;^;fci4»ril  }j»  tft  ^'*,W  w9 


. tit-im^-z  otf  P.i  sutf  . .ilf  ♦^viS 

1^'  .:*,  *’•  '..  .'  ':i.  A ^ Ai 


■ jL  ■ ■'  6 ’ ,’  -i,  . * i^’  ('  **S-'.  ' '■  vV  '5^  ' j'J 

T5  r, si.-jr4i*  oixu^-.Wi  *c? 


W'- 


''.^1 


“ituisi.  <«f*  aAi4-rrn*r^  A|l{'(^  Xlitt,  to  ^ dT^^  I 

» . -I  ^ r ’^.'v,.  *'  ^ ■'  ^ ' f ■ ' -V  i 


Tl.' 


•■  rr- 

. E.,'  ' 

" Idl 


•*  .. 
v^. 


■'4-'  ,f  '•: 


■l**.  V 


»rv* 


AOi  ,r rrji 


5 


. ^-  kt. 


18 


of  these  regulations.  Among  the  regulations  recognized  today  are  the  provisions 
that  such  prisoners  (l)  shall  not  he  deprived  of  their  private  property; (3)  they 
shall  not  he  cruelly  treated;  (3) the  captor  is  not  at  liberty  to  put  them  to  death, 
hut  must  release  them  if  he  cannot  maintain  them;  (4)  they  must  he  paid  for  the 
work  they  perform;  (s)  they  must  not  he  used  for  military  purposes  against  their 
own  country;  (6)  quarter  cannot  he  refused. 

All  of  these  rules  were  stated  with  more  or  less  clearness  hy  Webster  in 
diplomatic  correspondence  with  Mexico.^  The  violation  of  these  laws  hy  Mexico 
calls  forth  from  him  a clear  statement  of  the  supremacy  of  international  law  and 
the  obligation  of  all  civilized  nations  to  observe  these  rules. 

"This  is  the  humane  language  of  the  law  of  nations  — . The  law  of  war 
forbids  the  wounding,  killing,  impressment  into  the  troops  of  the  country,  or  the 
enslaving  or  otherwise  maltreating  of  prisoners  of  war,  unless  they  have  been 
guilty  of  some  grave  crime;  and  from  the  obligation  of  this  law  no  civilized  state 
can  dischar^  itself."^ 

Of  the  several  rules  as  above  given  Webster's  language  is  clear  in  most 

cases.  The  obligation  to  release  prisoners  if  they  cannot  be  maintained  is  not 

stated,  although  it  is  a corollary  to  the  definite  statement,  made  repeatedly, 

that  thsy  must  not  be  shot.  On  the  subject  of  quarter  he  makes  only  the  general 

statement  that  when  a soldier  submits,  the  law  demands  that  resentment  be  forgot- 

I 

ten. 

2)  Buies  governing  the  status  and  actions  of  citizens  abroad.  The  theory 
enunciated  on  this  point  contains  two  elements  which  at  first  glance  seem  somewhat 
contradictory.  The  true  relationship  between  them  is  tbe  most  important  point  in 

the  doctrine, 

) 

^See:  Letter  to  iJlr.  Thompson,  Vol.  XI,  p.  109ff. 

^ol.  XII,  p.  111. 


«fT«; 


Hi' 

.v'v,>  v' ^ ' -)f.  ■ ;i'  ...  JV.  ■- Ki  i ^ - 

.1  ^ A_L.  _ iL  k i*  ^ -mk^  .^JUf  i^  < _ «C<  . . rik  ^ ^ jf  ^ A r X . * .\  v 


~ Tr^  V I 

k^r ma>, . J *7' W a f » W*  . .*s 


X/nrF'V'  '>.’•: 


<Y.»>H 


^nir^F! 


'■i 


„'■  , '■  v:  ^ . ■ ' ' ,"  '.■■  f . ‘^’'^f.  .1.  §”’“■  'i  ''  ' ’'*■'  ' '-  V'"'' ' 

>•*«?« 

'■■  .“f  .'  '■••  • ■••  ■ :'-  V «>•  .^•^.  ..  . ' sf^-!?  •««  ’ f rjl 


^'■'-  ‘ ’ iiiMJs  « '” 


■n. 


;,Vv  ■ V 

,(  •!' 


it 


\'  -,4;4  inxcc?  .*  4;^  «i  r$fcr-'Ktr  ,t\yn’.70|ifce'xi^abOvg^;^ 


4|pf  'jyvFiM  ■’  “ 


,ai  <?3  ta»»tv<»4  :hi*3C 


.X 


l.'  j 


.;  :i  .*:  , p x . 


19 

The  first  element  is  the  illegality  of  participation  of  citizens  of  one 
nation  in  the  affairs  of  another.  Nentral  states  are  bound  by  the  law  of  nations 
to  be  strictly  neutral  and  it  is  "a  manifest  and  gross  impropriety  for  individuals 
to  engage  in  the  civil  conflicts  of  other  states,  and  thus  to  bs  at  war  while  their 
government  is  at  peace.  War  and  peace  are  high  national  relations,  which  can  prop- 
erly be  established  or  changed  only  by  nations  themselves." 

"The  doctrine  of  non-intervention  in  the  affairs  of  another  is  like- 

ly to  be  essentially  impaired,  if,  while  government  refrains  from  interference,  in- 
terference is  still  allowed  to  its  subjects,  individually  or  in  masses."^ 

He  reiterates  the  impropriety  and  danger  of  allowing  individuals  to  make 
war  on  their  own  authority,  especially  since  by  "smuggling  themselves  in  the  bel- 
ligerent operations  of  other  nations"  they  "run  the  hazard  of  counteracting  the 
policy,  or  embroiling  the  relations  of  their  own  government.^ 

On  the  other  hand  he  points  out  precedent  for  the  belief  that  "the  gen- 
eral law  of  nations  does  not  forbid  the  citizens  or  subjects  of  one  government  from 
taking  part  in  the  civil  commotions  of  the  other.  The  emigration  of  its  citizens 
caiinot  be  prevented  by  a goveniment,  he  asserts,  and  moreover,  it  is  no  duty  of  the 
government  to  endeavor  to  check  such  emigration. 

The  compatablllty  of  these  two  declarations  is  made  possible  by  his 
statement  of  the  domicile  theory  of  allegiance.  According  to  this  doctrine  if  a 
citizen  voluntarily  leaves  his  country  and  settles  in  another,  he  no  longer  owes 
allegiance  to  it,  nor  does  it  owe  protection  to  him.  Moreover,  the  acts  of  such 
indivldualB  can  never  be  construed  as  violations  of  neutrality  on  the  part  of  their 
original  father-land,  since  all  ties  of  responsibility  sire  discontinued  between 

^See  Vol.  XI,  p.  258-9. 

^Ibld. 

^Ibld,  p.  258. 


30 


this  govemnent  and  him. 

Moreover,  even  when  the  citizens  of  a nation  go  abroad  without  losing 
their  characters  as  its  citizens  - as  in  the  case  of  travellers,  etc.  - that  na- 
tion does  not  have  the  right  to  atteinpt  to  control  them,  while  they  are  beyond 
its  territorial  sovereigity.  Its  right  to  bind  their  actions  and  require  obedi- 
ence to  its  laws  returns  only  after  they  come  back  into  its  territory.  In  brief 
his  theory  on  this  point  was  that  ” — every  nation  has  an  exclusive  right  to  regu- 
late persons  and  things  within  its  territory,  according  to  its  sovereign  wllland 

public  policy. "2  ^ , ’ 

Some  nations,  he  acknowledged,  maintained  this  doctrine^^  but  he  rebutted 
it  by  pointing  out  that  no  nation  had  enacted  laws  prohibiting  the  emigration  of 
her  citizens®.  Also  many  states  had  laws  providing  for  the  naturalization  of  im- 
migrants, upon  fulfilling  the  requirements  of  which,  new-comers  can  throw  off  the 
allegiance  under  which  they  were  bom  and  become  citizens  of  the  new  country.  Be 
also  defended  his  theory  by  pointing  out  that  it  necessarily  followed  from  the 
recognized  right  which  gave  successful  uprisings  the  right  to  supplant  old  alle- 
giance with  new  independence. 

and 

Finally,  on  grounds  of  ethics,  expediency  as  well  as  law,  he  objected  to 
the  policy  of  demanding  perpetual  allegiance.  It  was  wrong  to  tear  men  away  from 
their  homes,  employments,  and  political  and  domestic  connections  to  "undergo  the 
dangers  and  hardships  of  military  service  for  a country  which  has  — ceased  to  be 
their  own  country." 

^Ibid.  See  also  Vol.  XII,  p.  128ff.  "These  persons  — repair  to  Texas,  not  as 
citizens  of  the  United  States,  but  as  ceasing  to  be  such  citizens,  and  as  changing, 
at  the  same  time,  their  allegiance,  and  their  domicile."  And  again:  we  do  not 
hold  and  never  have  held  "the  doctrine  of  perpetuity  of  natural  allegiance." 

^Vol.  XI,  p.  321. 

3 

On  the  contrary,  England  - though  she  entertained  this  theory,  encouraged  emigra- 
tion. 


ll 


21 

Not  only  were  individuals  wronged  but  conmerce  was  disturbed  and  hin- 
dered. Moreover,  it  was  unwise  to  insist  on  this  theory  because  it  was  a probable 
cause  of  "resentment,  exasperation  and  animosity"^  between  nations. 

The  contingency  of  the  right  of  individuals  to  participate  in  one  na- 
tion's struggles,  upon  the  renunciation  of  all  other  allegiance  he  consistently 
maintained:  "if  any  man  having  taken  part  in  the  Jfexican  war  with  Texas,  for  ex- 
arq>le,  still  claimed  to  be  a citizen  of  the  Ihited  States,  he  should  be  punished 

for  violating  the  law;  but  the  right  of  punishment  belonged  to  the  thited  States.^ 

i 

The  crime  of  those  guilty  of  un-neutral  intereference  is  not  piracy, 
however.  Not  only  is  the  right  to  punish  them  reserved  to  their  ov/n  government, 
but  they  do  not  deserve  the  punishment  that  piracy  incurs. 

/ 

The  duties  of  neutrality  he  affirms,  do  not  inteitefere  with  the  privi- 
lege of  making  financial  loans  to  belligerent  parties.  Neither  do  they  interfere 
with  the  full  exercise  of  the  right  of  free  speech,  and  the  criticism  of  the  bbl- 
ligerents,  if  overt  acts  are  not  indulged  in.*" 

3)  The  maritime  jurisdiction  of  a nation's  law.  Mr.  Webster  maintained 
that  ships  were  subject  only  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  country  of  which  its  own- 
ers were  citizens.  IxLfact^t  w_aa  to  be  considered  as  truly  under  the  dominion 
of  that  country  as  a-pdece  of  the  country  itself,  made  moveable,  but  not  on  a less 
proper  sphere  for  the  operation  of  its  laws.  "A  vessel  on  the  high  seas,  beyond 
the  distance  of  a marii^  league  from  the  shore,  is  regarded  as  a part  of  the  terri- 
tory of  the  nation  to  which  she  belongs,  and  subject  exclusively  to  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  that  nation.'^ 


Hoi.  XI,  p.  324. 

^Letter  to  Mr.  Thon^ison,  1842.  In  a letter  to  Mr.  Fox,  1851,  Webster  expresses 
pride  in  the  United  States  observance  of  the  principle  of  non-intervention,  and 
the  strictest  conformity  in  these  respects  to  the  rules  of  international  law. 

Hoi.  Ill,  p.  127. 

Hoi.  XI,  p.  306. 


• '4 


tf  ^ ^ ^ TTIPP  ^ T.-^'t',^ 

’ ",  ■ 5 ,‘  '.  ' )"\i  ,‘ 


'1  ^’1 


. *i-  - . .:•  • -.»lJtJ  %fi;*  ? ’ 

:pX3  rr:  ■ . . .:•  ■■  r:t  yu---''  '. ^ •'*«'• 


'.  ;!■  r si 


1.1. 

• „t*  •'  -V*  ^ 


:•.>  'f-X 


„•  1 ;.■  >>' . 


.i' 


'* ! ...<W  - J 


* ■ ■•  i«Oa.,‘?<a  5 ' ■ ••  M.  - ;:  3 ' , 


'ii 


I 


■:ir 


>• 

. -A.  . i/V- 


1-  f . 


I 

I 


-v;  ■’  ■ 


'i?:-.  Vii  '•■ 

■ . ■ ' ■‘  iiii 

% ; •'  } > ■ :/w  • 3 1;;;.*  . wr- 


],  ^ 


'HiC:  u-zoiri.  • - '•  ft  ' *;r  _■  ">'  ••'■' 


y V*'  V 

' »■  , > --y  ► 


-C 


't«  t'  . a*'i' 


^ . - .- -n  i.r;  Wj^sit 


I -,  • - , 4 '•‘  h*  •*  - f 'f?  {' 

■ i ' ^ - - n O w Cl* 


'^^i; 'j*  .'np^ -rOi’^a^U 

■ ’ : ' tJ  ; ”!  ■ V 


. f . r. 


. ! . ^.T. 


>i  /T>X'U^  • ■ .r  c -..li  :-i/'  .♦.  C vt-  .3:.nr.;dljrf^^*f«iw 

- ..i:il-r'. . f^p  "•  - 'J-''"  .^  ■"' ‘ •'  t"*  - .;.  "" 

-i 

■ , ^ -‘  ■ , > J J '•  ; 


. M 


ix  •>■ 


fj  ‘W  - ■ V ;t'.  .W'U.'<  « 


m 


■,.■•’  ft©  »)!; 


« < > 

. i , . 'll 


ii 


I r 
r 


i!  "I- 


■ -1 


i r Y 


, fiC>*  ><,'<  . 

; *t’  ’ ^ fri 


.:  '-i 


, j-»- ^ 
• . le 


v^l 


-V 


r-r 

m6t 


.« 


22 


"It  is  natural  to  consider  the  vessels  of  a nation  as  parts  of  its  ter- 
ritory, though  at  sea 

" — To  the  extent  of  the  exercise  of  this  jurisdiction,  they  are  consid- 

2 

ered  as  parts  of  the  territory  of  the  nation  herself." 

"Every  merchant-vessel  on  the  seas  is  rightfully  considered  as  a part  of 
the  territory  of  the  country  to  which  it  belongs." 

A nation's  law  thus  extends  a long  arm  that  follows  its  ships  throughout 
its  travels.  Or  a ship  may  be  considered  as  a sort  of  floating  island  in  the 

<3  4 

possession  and  obedient  to  the  laws  of  a nation.^ 

A 

But  not  only  when  a ship  is  in  mid-ocean  is  it  thus  to  be  regarded,  but 
even  when  it  comes  within  the  territorial  waters  of  another  sovereign®;  or  indeed 
into  the  harbors  of  a foreign  nation.  If  the  entrance  be  made  in  a friendly  way, 
for  friendly  purposes,  it  does  not  matter  what  the  motive  of  entrance  is,  or 
whether  it  be  voluntary,  or  the  result  of  storm  and  necessity.  Moreover  this  re- 
tention of  original  jurisdiction,  excludes  the  local  law:  a ship  in  a foreigi  har- 
bor enjoys  a sort  of  "extra-territoriality".® 

In  cases  where  the  entrance  of  a foreign  port  is  not  for  purposes  of 
trade,  but  the  urgent  necessity  of  the  weather,  by  which  it  is  driven  against  the 


^Ibid. 

^Ibid,  p.  307. 

3 

Letter  to  Lord  Asburton  on  Inpressnent.  Ibid,  p.  320. 

4 

"The  sovereignty  of  a nation  is  concerned  in  maintaining  its  exclusive  jurisdic- 
tion and  possession  over  merchant- ships  on  the  seas."  Vol.  XI,  p.  323. 

5 

" — this  jurisdiction  is  preserved  over  the  vessels,  even  in  parts  of  the  sea  Bub- 
ject  to  a foreign  dominion."  Ibid. 

g 

" — a merchant  vessel  coming  into  any  open  port  of  another  country  voluntarily, 
for  the  purposes  of  lawful  trade  — bring  with  her  and  keep  over  her  to  a very 
considerable  extent,  the  jurisdiction  and  authority  of  the  laws  of  her  own  country, 
excluding  to  this  extent,  by  consequence  the  jurisdiction  of  the  local  law.  A 
ship  - though  at  anchor  in  a foreign  harbor,  preserves  its  jurisdiction  and  its 
laws. " Ibid. 


JtKl 


i -, 


'i!^,  \ 


. . . , \.'^  ' .'  . . ’I.-  I » 


H . -ii- 


m.  '■  ■ ■ ' • -'V  ‘ .'■  Bf/;  , ' . ..  ^ 

\^f:  ■ ■■  • “V,  *‘  ■ '-<||^  ®?»-M:^IVicf . v4’ 


r ’Vi  -,.  ' , . r:  -4-  ^ 

-f  I 

tti . r“  4'  ■ . * , ' 1^  * . X: 


^.i)c  4t$i»'' \:€in  rt^f>  *»  jO 

F.»'<  ■%,  ■ ■ ” _■■'■  Pj  - ■ ..  ’'  u‘  ■ ■ I--'.  '4> 


1,^,'  ' ■>  rt  V 

....  !■>  ■ '7Ji'j5> 


, f.v>;  '«■•  .4 


ftt*  i.- 


'■  . -*  * * ' . . . -'jm  — ''•' 


4’fcf 


4 i . 


% • ' " ■ ■i*^' '?■  ',.  \.wr  >ift 

' ‘ ii*  ■ Hiu  'V’  ' 1 ■ J 


•;%  .1 


■^Sr  V' 


.aux‘' 


. . ir'.  lliis«-!pO!.' 

. ZZ-'  . ,irjnM(t^'?7qp?r  J-iii 

f l^r  .ly  ,tK  '.  f of  tr#‘  ^0' 

• >•  , ’ >■  ' 1 ■ -'-»'.>  a 


23 


will  of  the  master  or  owner  near  land  or  into  port,  the  justice  of  this  view,  Web- 
ster declares  to  be  even  clearer.  In  the  first  place,  from  a purely  legal  point 
of  view,  he  inquires  what  Justice  there  is  in  making  a distinction  between  the 
rights  and  iranuinities  of  a ship  in  a position  which  she  finds  herself  against  her 
will,  as  the  result  of  superior  power  and  absolute  necessity,  and  her  rights  and 
immunities  before  she  was  compelled  by  necessity  to  abandon  her  voluntary  course. 

Moreover,  "still  higher  principles"  support  the  right  of  ships  driven  by 
necessity  in  foreign  waters  to  exenption  from  interference:  that  is,  the  principles 
of  hospitality  and  courtesy,  which,  although  they  are  granted,  voluntarily,  accord- 
ing to  the  technicalities,  are  nevertheless  "held  sacred"  and  are  demanded  by  "the 
comnon  sense  of  justice  of  all  civilized  states," 

The  right  of  merchant- ships  to  bring  with  them  the  jurisdiction  and  laws 
of  their  own  country  into  the  ports  of  other  nations,  Webster  did  not  hold  to  be 
absolute,  but  based  on  the  tacit  permission  of  the  other  nations.  This  permission 
he  readily  admitted,  could  be  refused  by  any  nation:  it  was  entirely  within  her 
power  to  do  so.  But  for  a nation  to  make  such  a refusal  would  be  "irrational  and 
absurd"  and  such  action  would  be  equivalent  to  withdrawing  itself  "from  the  circle 
of  civilized  nations." 

In  the  absence  of  formal  announcement  by  "appropriate  enactments,  edicts 
or  declarations",  therefore,  and  so  long  as  ports  are  open  and  trade  is  invited, 
it  is  the  ri^t  of  all  nations  to  presume  that  this  permission  is  granted.  The 
distinction  between  what  a nation  may  do  if  it  pleases,  and  what  it  is  presumed  to 
do,  or  not  to  do,  in  the  absence  of  any  positive  declaration  of  its  will,  he  re- 
gards as  very  important.  The  fact  that  it  has  sort  of  reserved  power  to  abandon 
certain  common  methods  or  that  certain  ways  of  doing  are  dependent  upon  its  permis- 


sion, does  not^any  degree  limit  the  authority  of  these  methods  of  procedure  in  the 
absence  of  expressions  of  intention  to  exercise  this  reserve  power  and  withdraw  its 
permission.  There  is  no  right  to  give  the  appearance  of  readiness  to  carry  on  inter- 


■'fn.-.r.-  .T'T-’t  • 'T- 


Jii:'.  •'. 


, - > ...  y 


i % } ’ 


:r>  >.'' 


<-  ic 


• . i .'c'es-->  I--- c ifiil’  x^i»:  *-;-5  .s-f 


1^. 


Si 


'J«  J *V  ’^‘‘S  -'' 


r' 


■.1--  j : ' 


vj 


:■  ■ ■ X(  ■ 

is- 


I 


'■  f Cf.  ' ’■■  ■»o  . *'  ■•  ■ :-li 

Ot..f 


K- 


■•>;,"  : iftnTr<V'^<’  '•■  V ■-■(-'.  • >#  t , '.V  / '4li5nd'i  Ot,..| 

’ ' ■ . . ';.  '■■  ■ ’ . **  ’ ' , ■'  >1  ' 


«*»rC  ‘•--J 

3K 


t*:* 


• .'a.' 


j ' •'^i 

; ^ i .-•:  •'  ' ; ■■  ‘ -v-.  'f.  r«'  ■ ■ , • 

?’^;i  rjf ' '•“jv,.  i 


. s .■  X i s4t  4; " ; I i. 'x '- {• 

:• -5  i<t-, 


i/i  "fits  ti/ 


« ^f4A 


! 


vrf; 


. a « 


24 


coiirse  with  other  nations,  and  then  to  deny  the  privileges  which  are  "according 
to  general  -usage." 

In  o-utlining  the  law  prescribed  by  this  "co-ca»try  and  law  of  nations,  and 
the  practice  of  modern  times"  he  laid  en^hasis  on  the  assertion  that  he  was  Imi- 
tatlng  no  new  principles  but  merely  stating  "the  doctrine  of  the  law  of  nations, 
clearly  laid  down  by  writers  of  received  authority,  and  entirely  conformable,  as 
is  supposed,  with  the  practice  of  modern  nations."  "—  the  United  States"  he  af- 
firmed, "propose  the  introduction  of  no  new  principle  into  the  law  of  nations. 

They  require  only  a faithful  and  exact  observance  of  the  Injunctions  of  that  code 

1 

as  understood  and  practiced  in  modem  times."  He  regarded  his  position  in  this 
matter  as  "safe  and  defensible"  and  he  apprehended  no  controversy  with  England 
on  these  principles.*' 

He  conceded  several  qualifications  to  the  theory  that  a ship  is  solely 
and  exclusively  -under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  country  of  its  owners.  In  the  first 
place,  wherever  there  was  any  specific  provision  of  international  law,  that,  of 
co-urse,  should  take  precedence  pf  the  nation’s  law.  That  is  to  say,  international 
law  governed  ships  abroad,  but  it  provided  that  where  it  had  no  particular  pro- 
vision, the  situation  should  be  regulated  by  the  law  of  the  ship's  country.^ 

In  the  second  place,  he  did  not  claim  that  the  j-urisdiction  of  a nation 
over  a vessel  belonging  to  it,  v/hile  lying  in  the  port  of  another  nation  was 
necessarily  exclusive.  He  took  pains  to  make  it  definite  and  clear  that  he  did 
not  hold  this  position.  In  the  relations  of  the  passengers  and  crew  to  the^ocal 
law  functions,  no  exemption  can  be  claimed  if  crimes  are  committed  against  the  in- 
habitants. And  contracts  and  civil  relationships  of  this  sort  are  sdso  subject  to 

^Ibid,  p.  305,  306. 

2 

See:  Private  correspondence,  vol,  2,  p.  120-1. 

®Ibid,  p.  320-323. 


I 


i - v'-  i i vT  ^ 

#' 

>4:‘: 


if'  ,Ti’-; 


r*J 


: ' 


?5‘'“  'W  |' 

■ ''V’  i$k  -■-.  ?■ 


Cl-  \5.1s '.••••.•. n/-|^  ' 

'-••■  • 'v.  /'.•■'•jsti  ,•;■•  ■ . . " t ■" 


. \ 

V i.  . 


'if  « -•,  i ■ 


» 


■::l*ir  ,i? 

■ii  ■' 

' ,'-■  T V n . ' . '.|<;  i; i>p . ' 

t. . j{;^ro  til^9  ^ 


i 


'.■ : . -•  i'X"  'ii'-  .;j-  ;■  i . /•;  ■ fu 


lira. 


• ! ^ 


, .•  -•  : :J. 

? *nyO:a 


-."U)  - 


' -, , . ,1. . ... 


i 

. "r.  '\riir  ilSt 


i : . fl? 


• ^ I-  *•-. 

kv*  • .-•  • 


. 9,  jNt  >in  -■;  i -Af  ] ' 

,.’r  ' 'I 


I *1 


kii  ^ 

'cf  Ive.;,.j.  -.J 


0 ■•-a  r’?r^‘,  rJ-.J  ’•  ' ,,"..4rt.i  '*/ ! ■ 


1 


■ ■-  ’^--J  - y ,'Jvi  *TJi;.r*L.'i 


'.1.1  


25 


the  local  law.  Nevertheless  local  law  is  quite  excluded  from  all  matters  in  which 
only  passengers  and  crew  are  concerned:  if  a crime  of  any  sort  (he  uses  murder 

as  an  exan^jle)  were  comn'dtted  by  one  ship-traveller  upon  another,  the  laws  relat- 
ing to  tl»  crime  in  the  shdpe  country  would  be  in  force,  and  the  court  of  that 
country  would  be  the  proper  tribunal. 

Mr.  Webster  had  occasion  to  elaborate  his  views  on  this  subject  In  con- 
nection with  two  international  disputes.  In  the  case  of  the  Brig  Creole^  part 
of  a cargo  of  slaves  had  mutinied,  committed  murder,  secured  control  of  the  ship 
and^  turning  it  away  from  its  American  destination  had  steered  it  into  the  port  of 
Nassau  in  the  Bahamas  where  the  English  authorities  permitted  the  escape  of  the 
culprits,  instead  of  restoring  them  to  their  legal  subservience  to  their  overpow- 
ered masters.  To  the  English  defense  that  all  slaves  that  come  within  the  realm 
of  English  law  by  that  act  become  force,  Webster  replied  that  he  freely  acknow- 
ledged this  fact,  but  that  according  to  his  law  of  the  extraterritoriality  of 
foreign  ships,  the  liberation  of  the  slaves  had  been  an  interference  within  the 
realm  of  the  law  of  the  United  States.  The  British  authorities  had  no  more  ri^t 
under  these  circumstances  to  put  an  end  to  the  legal  relationship  of  master  and 
slave  than  they  had  to  dissolve  legal  relationships  of  marriage,  parenthood,  or 
indenture  or  other  contracts  under  the  same  circumstances. 

In  his  objection  to  the  British  practise  of  impressing  (supposedly)  Eng- 
lish sailors  from  American  ships,  Mr.  Webster  argued  that  although  a sailor  might 
be  beyond  any  doubt  a subject  of  England  according  to  law,  this  fact  gave  that 

country  absolutely  no  right  to  take  him  away  from  the  American  ship,  since  in  that 

U.S. 


ship  Ihiited  States  law  prevailed  and  according  to^law  a man  is  subject  only  to  tl:^ 
control  of  the  nation  in  whose  Jurisdiction  he  finds  himself.^ 


See:  C-urtis,  Vol.  II,  p.  121ff. 
above-. 


' Tv,' ' ' 'T,  ■ V Y, 


‘r. 


m 


■*#? 


3^- 


T1 

fr 


/•'  ' ^ .'.  1^' ' • ' * ‘ ' '■  ■ ' • ' ''■  i * * '*  -JP  ll  I ' , I*  * ■ ' ij"-  ' 

:■  ,!«lis'  ii'-«l  Vi'  ,iji«J?nt'^4*'  (tf<^Si^-.iM;' 


t^'-' 


< i 


' T._ 

.Iffix,'. ; ■/!!.*.  ■ ■ i*>j  ''  •'.„'  , -•• ' '{’  ^ '*•  . ^ -«t  T «: 

^,*\  ■ ' ' ! , •* , '■^' >'.  ■ >-„■'<'-? 

' ■ .'  '■;  '•■  ' . ■/'  '^-  ■'•■  ^,  - 

ti?' 'iyoiiiit  >^m  «?}■  o'^-  ‘W..;V;^..  ’,4v  i 

'■'•  -r  fe  •■  ••  ..  .^."  * * •-,:  ; ■•  ..  •'  ' .'. Yfi  , ' , . • K 

'<W'  . ■,  , ‘ ' ■.  ’ ,.'  '■  ' l''  ' • ' , 'X  '•  *i’  ■ ,J  *'  * 

■•V  'j  ••  , w ,-y,.  ^ ^ ./y'ai  I..  ■ _ ■'  ' •,•  ..v^,. 

V / ’ "'■  ■'  V i.  ' ..  . ^ , -M  ^ ' >■'"  -.‘r 

If'^  , ,.  **i-'  '•'  '>'..  > ’ S'.l  , .'/*),  n-‘  ^ .j',-  '.,'  A ^V'.f.r* 


t V 

t 


t’.'^t'f'  'iilpi  •*i»fljfi|<ii».>  '»i. • **!* 

. ■.''  ..'  ‘i-^..  . .i t_ ^r^.’..f- ij.».tn. ij#.  i.i».,.'<^..  4b  SSiflJSJ  ^*’5lli< 


*•  ■ ■;>  I.-''  i - ‘ ••*•'•  '.  «-H 


L 


^■1 


ijlSv.-  ..  ^,.v^V  \ «■  ■••  .y.,  cl  '■  . ■ ■'  , %>..•'*,  • f,'-^  ■•-'V'-i'  ?'-'i 

.J 

' ' • -•?.-ti»M»xr.  «w>^v  ^ *t<»*  '«k 

'.  \ . g . . .'S-jJ 


riff'!] 
..  .'■  ’■*■ 


JL'  '•a«jt^'^lu  h"' 


26 


If  the  "notion  of  perpetual  allegiance"  were  a provision  of  internation- 
al law  instead  of  being  merely  the  law  of  Britain  then  indeed  the  English  claim 
would  be  Justified,  he  admitted,  for  according  to  the  qualification  of  his  theory 
above  noted,  the  regulations  of  international  law  hold  within  each  nation's  jur- 
isdiction. 

He  followed  these  legal  aa*guments  with  a review  of  considerations  of 
expediency  (injury  to  men,  to  trade,  to  national  friendship)  which  demanded  the 
abandonment  of  England's  claim. 

4.  Extradition  of  Criminals 

One  of  the  most  signal  contributions  to  the  body  of  precedent  which 
governs  national  relations  made  by  Mr.  Webster  was  the  effecting  of  the  treaty 
with  Great  Britain  providing  for  the  mutual  extradition  of  criminals.  No  pecul- 
iar advsuitage  to  the  United  States  would  result  from  such  an  arrangement  - in 
fact  Webster  expressly  denies  that  he  made  any  atteii5>t  to  gain  any  such  advantage. 
On  the  contrary  it  is  a law  which  operates  equally  to  the  interest  of  both  na- 
tions involved,  and  it  is  significant  of  Webster's  ideal  of  international  harmony 
and  co-operation  that  he  found  in  a controversy  which  seemed  to  contain  the  grave 
possibilities  of  friction^  an  opportunity  for  advancing  the  common  welfare  of  all 
parties. 

There  were  serious  difficulties  to  obstruct  this  advancement.  England 
was  very  tender  about  anything  that  might  possibly  bind  her  to  extradite  fugitive 
slaves;  and  Webster  was  compelled  to  admit  repeatedly  that  there  was  nothing  in 
the  existing  law  that  required  extradition  of  any  kind  of  criminal,  except  where 
this  was  provided  for  by  special  treaty. 

^The  Creole  case. 

^Ths  govemrasnt  was  pressed  by  the  Southern  interests  to  secure  such  a treaty; 
but  Mr.  Webster  refused  to  make  any  attempt.  A comparison  of  his  stand  in  this 
affair  with  his  views  on  the  American  furtive  slave  law  might  be  of  some  profit 
in  some  other  connection. 

J 


‘T-,;  - T :^T>y  -^  . : m ^laPM 


c^ 


' '% 


m 


U Vi 


.^/'W»6£yJ^-#UV  !iuyi'a^iy  ^ m 

V ’ ■«  “37’,:*' ■'  .'1  ..,■: 

*'  ■ -*'  '-:§■;  7 ’ ■“  ’ '•;  ,-■  - : ■'••-»  ’•■'  ^-  , . - • ■■  . ■'  * 'of 


,•>»■—  ■ ■•■wW  r ■ - ■ -^  ■■«  ■ ■*'^ 

’ ’ ' ■ I.  ' * '''■  “ ''''*.  n 


rftliiHUtt 
7.  ^ .■  «, 


r ^fT'’  ‘ -.  . . ■ ^ ^ 

'■^  i-  - ■ ■'■  V ,^,  ._.  »j  * « '•.^-  ' ■’■  Iff 

- W^'-‘ '..  " ™“"" 


;.-a 


r-  «'  - dbMf! 

E»-„.  - 


?#ei.r4M  ,^'  ■ 'i 

" v"  -■  ,:iP^i^  '■  '•■  'I 

»9  “ *’  ''*  ^ 1 Tr 

* • / " • ’ ■ • ,,•  't.~  _ ' ^.-  ■!» 


\; " •'  .,.  ,7»'.«-ii-  "'  ' ' . ';  . iT  ■ ■ ’.  j'"'  ' ■ . » Hi.  ‘ 


I'  * wife 

.«.  B IK**'  .*i  * ' ' . ’ wj  ' *^.  ^ '*  ,1  •*  i 


ir " '.  :::■^■'  ■ ■,.  .'  lir'i  ; 

- - g ( 

- r" >»  —— - . •■'»'-«  ^ « - «•» 

■ ■■:  ,'V"’^,^'%-t'  M 


(] 


• * V.  • • , . i!n^  I . w,  . ■ ••{'  A “'  j • . ''5|||^  -ly 

t-^.'  *i  • '*' 'r,  '“.  „ 4^l-'-'t^:  **  ■■'.*l»*r . • . ^ 

-,,,iuT‘«iW'*w  's'^^- :S^'’  f* 

b|'‘  , ' -^  • ■'  V ' , \SV;  7'  ■••“.-  ^ V"'  ■ '.:  ';*  i*'  ^ ^ '|fc*S 

- - 5 f4W  Kfi^'  *#» 

, -nsf  » •4®S& « m J ^ 


fb-  , , *fiS|'  ^ 

£avt:kt^-  ‘ 

- ’ *»  .V  a' 


" J, <Kr^Vw 

' r.'  •■  ■' 


,^v.  ,'.■  .^  ',  ‘-V  ,. ' ,^(  .‘  ' .,  >/  ./'r^,  ' , 7 ,;■'  ,■. 

•■'*  vvA  .■  ■ ^ •'  >.  ' C 5/  s' 


.'»»  cj  tp^55K.a  W *;,#S  ’ 

' ’■  ■"-  ' ■ 'VvIjS  -v’"  ’■  -V  i.J^iJ^^ftf{,,; 


- J 


< ^ yvf 


..>  f, 


r- 


' ' 1^  “*  — ■ - ^ ■ ~ k 


>J»- 


v.7^‘'  -yk^  :, 


j'  ef‘  • ■ ■ isjkt"  :?W|ii  fi(t ' ‘-'.t*  ^ ’’■”’ . . _ rjS 

7 y'irifiA.  t<  deett^  ^ 


«fT. 


-’i  ■■  *'  ■"■'.■  -./  .t^|ft)m«r(4  ‘mtfio  ./Hj 


He  made  a tactful  and  successful  appeal,^  against  a system  which  per- 
mitted the  most  terrible  crimes  to  go  unpunished,  and  secured  an  article  in  the 
Treaty  of  Washington  providing  for  the  mutual  surrender  of  persons  accused  of  cer- 
tain specified  crimes.  Of  the  provision  Mr.  Curtis  says:  "It  introduced  into  the 
relations  of  nations  a new  feature,  which  has  since  bean  followed  by  many  en- 
lii^tened  states.  This  great  advance  in  civilization  is  due  entirely  to  Mr.  Web- 
ster's forecast,  and  to  the  perseverance  with  which  he  eliminated  from  the  case 

of  the  Creole  the  question  which  could  bs  made  the  subject  of  a treaty ."2 

IV.  The  Participation  of  the  United  States  in 
Fore 1 01  Affairs. 

Besides  the  general  and  specific  rules  which  govern  international  in- 
tercourses it  is  thought  fit  to  examine  into  Mr.  Webster's  ideas  in  regard  to  the 
particular  part  our  country  has  to  play  among  the  nations.  The  peculiarities  of 
United  States  history  and  constitution,  he  keenly  felt,  gave  to  the  nation  a uni- 
que place  in  international  relations,  unique  duties  to  perform,  and  a unique  des- 
tiny to  fulfill. 

1,  The  United  States  as  the  example  of  democracy 
The  most  inqportant  thing  about  the  United  States  in  Webster's  mind  was 
that  it  was  a democracy.  These  facts  affected  the  character^  all  its  actions 
and  formed  the  background  for  its  international  relations.  Bat  not  only  wais  it 
a democracy,  but  it  was  the  only  great  democracy  in  the  world,  and  it  was  the 
first  great  democracy  in  the  world.  The  establishment  of  its  government  was  the 
first  instance  in  the  history  of  the  world  of  an  attempt  to  establish  democracy 
on  such  a scale.  The  ancient  democratic  cities  and  communities  he  maintained, 

^This  is  evident  from  the  correspondence,  althou^  this  matter  was  settled  chief- 
ly as  the  result  of  personal  conferences  with  Lord  Ashburton, 

2 

Life  of  Daniel  Webster,  vol.  2,  p.  121.  T . • 


■■  'SV' 


. :i50 ; <;v.  r.  i ^ 


'j  '"i’'"  . '..r  ! ‘■,•■ 


. V . I *.  - ■ • 


, : ; • 1 ..i 


■;  51.  4M< 


4.  * :o 


1 


,i4'  ^ 

j ^ ; C> 


L^;  i j fl 


;tt 

■•'  0i(iiU;^  ’.  v-i  -v.t.  • >*  ' 'i 

« . 'v;..  . v t'  ef^iJ  !‘ 


\ . : 


- k ' ./f  _ 


.?r* 


^ V 


.1.1 

’’  "■  ■'"??  '1 


^ Ci-:  p .1 


■,  t . 


«1  ^ 


I 


.4 


)",  '1 


. r.  ; ./• 

I*.  . . 


H. 

.:jj 


* Sl\ 


¥ 


7; 


ft 


« 


;» i r<  . 


i'  • j . / ' ■ 


. '•.• 

«uf,)f  I«y<  I f 


1 d\iu<  / - , ' 

. <tiJn  1;  / f j i;:u4  .'-•- 


■i.< 


. ‘ . V^j 

t-  - 1 ■'. 


. f>6 


!•  4.*- 

:»  ‘to  :,‘.:i 


..Ci  i 


40/ ..8 


#'■ 


I 


28 


did  not  form  a precednet  for  while  they  were  confined  to  small  territories  in 
which  direct  participation  in  the  government  .by  each  citizen  was  possible  this 
government  controlled  the  most  important  part  of  an  immense  continent;  and  was 
based  on  the  relatively  new  principle  of  representation;  and  in  fact  had  quite 
different  and  incomparably  greater  problems  to^deal  v/ith. 

The  newness  of  the  country  gave  it  still  the  character  of  a great  ex- 
periment before  the  world,  although  internally  it  had  achieved  great  success;  had 
developed  an  enlightened  citizenry,!  and^caused  the  prosperity  which  characterized 
the  country’s  condition  to  an  extraordinary  degree.^  It  was  the  peculiar  duty  of 
America,  the  divine  mission  to  which  she  had  been  allotted  by  Providence  to  her- 
self and  to  mankizid,  to  demonstrate  the  practicability  and  emln  nt  desirability 
of  democratic  government  on  a huge  scale,  so  that  other  peoples  seeing  its  bene- 
fits, might  establish  new  governments  on  its  pattern  and  thus  spread  freedom  and 
prosperity  through  the  world.  Our  actions  should  be  carefully  guarded  therefore, 
since  the  overthrow  or  disintegration  of  our  government  would  not  only  bring  dis- 
aster on  ourselves  but  it  would  quench  this  torch  which  should  lighten  the  pro- 
cession of  progress.  If  the  American  experiment  in  democracy  should  fail, it 
would  discourage  all  men's  hopes  for  free  government  and  it  might  mean  that  such 
an  experiment  would  never  again  be  undertaken,  and  the  cause  of  democracy  should 
be  forever  lost. 

Tl»  fact  that  we  ^e  a powerful  nation  makes  the  role  that  we  are  to 
play  among  the  nations  important  for  its  size  as  well  as  its  meaning.  Webster  re- 
peatedly indulged  in  exultation  in  the  mightiness  of  this  country,  but  he  oftan 
accompanied  such  expressions  with  urgent  appeal  that  Americans  feel  sharply  the 
duty  and  responsibility  that  accompanies  it.  The  fact  that  conditions  make  it 


< 


X?ri> 


1 < 


1 

\ 


♦ 

I 

) 

' ' 

■•  I 

» 

- 1 

» 

I 


■•»P 


,iC  ' ■■ 


rto^  \f/.*  '..' -/.w 


r-Jfv/’A'orNi  . icTS  j>-;: --i/i 


; ^ ;:i '.  . .-r  r -‘*.ji.*  1 ^ ' I. 


tj'V.r..  :•:  ^ -*-v 


;iii  . i.i-i  *»*« 


j vipr/r!  « 



f r .Jn  , - i 


II 


rr-  'r.  .-■ 


, . ■ -r  f'nvfti: : .^ 

•>. 


; •.;:-v::v{p~  ' ' -j!  ■•,. 

> 

; ' ‘'V  '•  ■ ■ 

l;u  i :>^  . '■  ‘ - V.  . •■  ' 

U^-r’ 

.•■••■  . ’ 

- ■ ••'•'■  ■' 

r f j 

..•;v’-  : M V "■■'■ 

'?'’U  t;  ■ kiv];  - "'  ■■ 


L- 

t 


:i  -y  ' r.---  j 

• ' ■ -.  . ■ ' ■ ' ■ r 

' * .■■•'  ^ ' / • “■  •'  a . 

* '■  . ■ ■ . ‘ ' ■*  * » /'■;••  . . f 

V.  ..  •••^ 


■1  ■■ .. 

* t'  . ‘' 

•:;  ri'-  “ •'  -"■ 

- .'s-  ■ 

x' ■'-■  '■  ''.JA' 


1 < . 


. . ’-r  • I 


e. 


•i}'  •*■■  ■ ^ 


. 'S  •rtiffil-iB'  i '.'  -.  iJ. c 

•r  « >.  ■ - 


1?..1  •'{?'.  ' -t.~-  -'i.  ■-  *3  f : ? 6 W^: : 

a', 

^'«l  ! m 


r./j: 
/ . ❖ 


I -r 

. * • 

? s. 


.> 


Ai-r] 


. •v.'j^  ijf'r'-.o  rtv.Mr“T,- ■'  . ."'i**' 


♦ J -4 

“ ',,r* 


' ■ * ' / ' 
■'  ■ .5^ ' 

•■ , .iit-  ^ 


i'  ^ 


'ikky.*u‘^':s>'  - »■'  ;..6Xi.-v  • 


. .1  rfi 


A 


I*  . '’■V*'  ■■  ' '- 


.t  ^ . ■<  •.  t .■'  ; XV*; 

..'  ‘I  ‘ 

; V ■ : . .'.r 

■•  .»v.  »• 


y..l  u.  ■ ■<■ 


:'t  e.' 


Mt 

:»a  r*j‘U  ^ 


' y %-  f r *■.:•.{ 


, ,’'.  ■ i i7.i' 


,‘i 


. Ji 


.1. .A  • 


,1 


29 


inevitable  that  we  are  to  play  a great  part  in  international  affairs  ought  not  to 
result  in  mere  vain-glory  on  the  part  of  Americans;  repeatedly  he  warns  against 

this  danger.  America  must  cew?afully  and  conscientiously  accept  its  greatness  as 

)V 

a huge  responsibility.  It  must  make  its  example  as  brilliant  and  alluring  as 
possible^  and  encourage  by  all  proper  means  to  follow  it. 

Webster  felt  that  the  era  in  which  he  lived  was  crucial,  not  only  be- 
cause American  demooracy  was  new  andj^its  success  stable,  yet  to  be  conclusively 
demonstrated,  but  also  in  regard  to  affairs  outside  of  America.  Great  issues  were 
being  struggled  over  in  Europe.  The  conflicting  principles  of  popular  and  auto- 
cratic government  were  contending,  and  doctrines  promulgated,  which  if  they 
should  become  established,  would  make  our  government  appear  to  stand  on  an  ille- 
gal basis. 

He  believed  that  the  United  States  ought  by  no  means  to  be  indifferent 
to  the  progress  of  events  in  Europe.  That  the  progress  of  events  in  that  conti- 
nent had  a very  vital  influence  on  America,  he  felt  to  be  as  true  as  the  reverse. 
The  modem  extreme  advocates  of  a so-called  "feonroo  doctrine"  who  would  have  the 
United  States  refrain  from  all  manner  of  interference  with  E-uropean  affairs,  and 
atteii5)t  to  live  our  national  life  in  political  seclusion,  are  entirely  out  of 
sympathy  with  Mr.  Webster's  views.  In  his  speech  on  the  Eeo  in  Greece  he  states 
and  refutes  this  idea.  In  answer  to  the  specious  doctrine  that  "the  wide  Atlantic 
is  between  us  and  danger"  he  responds  that  it  is  not  only  to  our  interest  to  of- 
fer resistance  or  encouragement  to  European  systems  because  "the  enterprising 
spirit  of  the  age,  o-ur  own  active  commercial  spirit,  the  great  increase  which  has 
taken  place  in  the  intercourse  between  civilized  and  commercial  states,  have  giv- 
en  us  a high  concern"  in  the  nature  of  those  relationships;  but  "we  have  a duty 
connected  with  this  subject  — ",  i.e.  "As  the  leading  republic  of  the  world" 

"we  must  insist  upon  the  preservation  of  our  principles,  wherever  they  are  to  be 


\i 

Ki 


■m 


I 

I 

\ 


V, 


fo\md  exemplified.^ 

The  same  reasons  that  gave  us  the  right  to  object  to  interference  by 

■Vv  . 

European  powers  between  Spain  and  her  colonies  give  us  the  right  to  protest  a- 
gadnst  interference  with  any  small  European  power.  Thus  the  Monroe  doctrine  ac- 
cording to  Webster  was  not  so  much  "America  for  Americans"  as  it  was  "America  for 
Americanism,  wherever  it  may  be,  whenever  it  may  need  an  advocate."  "We  shall 
not,  I trust,  act  upon  the  notion  of  dividing  the  world  vdth  the  Holy  Alliance, 
and  complain  of  nothing  done  by  them  in  their  hemisphere,  if  they  will  not  inter- 
fere with  ours,"  he  said.^ 

In  a letter  to  Edward  Everett^  he  wrote  "I  think  we  have  as  much  com- 
munity with  the  Greeks  as  with  the  inhabitants  of  the  Andes,  or  the  dwellers  on 
the  borders  of  the  Vermillion  Sea." 

When  principles  were  enumerated  in  Europe  contrary  to  our  principles, 
it  was  our  duty  to  protest  against  them.  When  peoples  in  Europe  endeavored  to 
follow  our  exanple  of  government  it  was  our  part  to  encourage  them.  America 
should  always  take  a keen  interest  in  European  affairs,  and  endeavor  by  all  prop- 
er means  to  guide  them  according  to  her  interest  and  that  of  justice,  both  by  try- 
ing to  repress  undesirable  happenings,  and  by  strengthening  all  developments 
which  we  could  sanction. 

2.  Neutrality  the  National  Policy 

The  methods  by  which  the  United  States  should  make  its  influence  felt 
in  Europe  should  be  strictly  neutral  ones.  Not  only  should  our  country  strictly 
observe  all  the  demands  of  international  law  in  regard  to  the  duties  of  neutrali- 

^See  Voi.  V,  p.  75ff. 

^Ibid,  p.  76-7. 

Private  correspondence,  vol.  1,  p.  332. 


V’  .i' v; : 

' '-.r 


4 ...  V , 


■j  i’y  « 

.%«•  no-:.. 


n ; 


;llSCC'  A • .6  c/ 

- 

.ss&r6  . 

^..f-  ■ . ,-//  >. l' 

i;|*^ 

- . » * /m-  ' * . 


■.r 

Tr-'  ■ ' . 

" i 'V’.j ; * 

. -■  ' 


,.  I 


■•  '=£^v  • » . 

■•.A?  ;.»  ' - , 

L'« jT4;4  ' ,V  ir  i 


r*.vv  ■ •_, 


•j ■ ■-'^'!  .’^Tj,  r I.'**  .. ■ -*i.  ■ i ^ 

it.. 

■■  ■ ■ " 

V'  - •' 

j"’,' 

. ; '"'  ' 

,a.  ■■' 

•t  .,  v3/(-:  *:,■.  ' 

(■'il'-  *',^6 

, - , ■ ...  . - 1 , .i.-  '■/«  1 

' ^ 1 ^ 

^r.  rtM  [ ( f nrrf  >: 

i ; 

.'  '.'/‘i,  . 

• f ^ 9 4.  ^ 

, -- 

.6-'-  « x-'-l  ;'*•  ■ •■ 

...-o'  *;•  •.<  . . .: 

:,.■  J/'!','  ■ -f»v  r:i 

J • , 

A :■  1 ■-.  •, 

: V.  'i; 

■/ 

...•>..  % i-;=  ■'•••  ’■-.  .V 

J ' * V-  ■ < 

4 ..  ^ - . 

j.  . ! . _ . , .■  , ...  ' 

■ 

J A-yi  ,-.V  o- 

V 

^ i 

4^'':-'  * li'i*-  v'f 

‘ •*  ‘ 

::c.l  ■ V('js:  ■ J 'S 

%'.'5  '{,’S  V 

f 

o'*.  * , *i 

*.  4 ■ ■ • V * * 

-,  ;.  -:  ■ iti -’ 

col;rufr  '^.4  ^ 


'1...  •)  *.44.,: 
i 


V < 

:■  > 


* ‘>'1.  U4  • ^ 


31 


ty,  but  even  in  cases  where  we  would  be  legally  Justified  in  taking  a belligerent 
position  our  interest  decoanded  that  we  should  maintain  our  neutrality. 

The  expression  of  our  opinions,  the  wei^t  of  our  moral  sx^sport,  and 
recogiition  of  the  establishment  of  democratic  uprisings  whenever  they  become  de 
facto  governments,  were  the  methods  - the  only  methods  we  should  employ.^  These 
would  prove  powerful.  The  success  of  our  form  of  government  would  recommend  it, 
but  only  as  it  thus  should  recommend  itself,  should  its  adoption  be  urfeed  on  oth- 
er  nations.  For  since  our  govemitsnt  and  ideals  were  peculiar,  since  the  aims 
we  sought  were  different  from  those  of  the  other  great  nations,  there  could  be  no 
profit  for  us  in  the  formation  of  alliances.  The  hopes  of  the  United  States  lay 
in  her  internal  development;  if  she  fully  exploited  her  possibilities  in  this  di- 
rection, she  would  enjoy  a greatness  which  would  fulfill  all  the  hopes  of  patri- 
ots. Not  only  her  great  possibility  but  our  great  dangers  lie,  not  in  the  field 
of  forei^  relations,  but  in  our  internal  affairs®.  For  the  United  States  to  en- 
ter the  game  of  "Welt  politik"  would  be  to  abandon  her  true  destiny.  Neutrality 
and  the  evidence  of  foreign  entanglements  was  the  "cardinal  policy  of  this  gov- 
ernment.^ The  policies  initialed  by  Washington  were  the  only  wise  course  for 
America,  and  all  far  sighted  citizens  should  insist  that  these  policies  be  main- 
tained. ® 

we  prescribe  no  forms  — we  dictate  to  nobody  — Vol.  IV,  p.  211. 

^very  nation  should  be  left  entirely  free  to  choose  its  own  form  of  government. 
Vol.  V,  p.  66. 

‘'This  feeling  that  our  fortunes  are  naturally  unconnected  with  the  fortunes  of 
any  foreign  power  and  that  they  should  be  kept  so  he  put  forward  as  the  basis  of 
his  protest  against  the  embargo  during  the  war  of  1812.  His  great  objection  was 
that  its  effectiveness  depended  on  the  success  of  France,  while  it  was  our  duty 
to  take  measures  that  would  depend  our  rights  by  our  own  power, not  that  of  any 
foreign  nation.  See  Vol.  VIV,  p.  43ff. 

^Letter  to  Alvear,  Argentine  minister  to  U.S.,  Vol.  XIV,  p.  37. 

5 

Vol.  XVI,  p.  362.  See  also  "Character  of  Washington." 


32 


3.  The  wisdoca  of  peace. 

Not  only  did  Wetster  believe  that  this  co-untry  ou^t  to  maintain  neu- 
trality in  regard  to  all  quarrels  among  foreigi  nations,  but  in  disputes  in  which 
we  were  directly  involved,  he  thought  it  was  our  duty  and  to  our  interest  to  take 
all  possible  measures  to  preserve  peace.  An  age  of  peace  was  a blessing  to  the 
world  and  every  nation  should  beware  of  interrupting  it.  The  repetitions  and 
doubtless  often  perfunctory  expressions  of  desire  to  maintain  peace  always  to  be 
found  in  diplomatic  correspondence,  were,  I am  convinced,  sincere  in  the  case  of 
Mr.  Webster.  For  in  his  correspondence  he  not  only  expresses  such  a desire  for 
peace,  but  gives  arguments  for  it  and  taJces  pains  to  point  out  the  evils  of  its 
interruption;  he  did  not  merely  make  sanctimonious  professions  after  rupture  had 
become  almost  unavoidable,  as  politicians  are  wont  to  do;  but  he  urged  that  pre- 
ventive measures  be  adopted,  and  that  when  friction  occurs,  nations  magnanimously 
look  down  on  making  it  the  occasion  for  strife.^ 

He  was  recogiized  by  European  governments  and  by  those  with  whom  he  had 

2 

to  deal  as  an  advocate  of  peace.  His  personal  influence  with  foreigi  negotia- 
tors was  great  - he  was  a very  striking  man  - and  apparently  always  firmly  on  the 
2 

side  of  peace. 

"This  republic",  he  declared  in  a letter  to  Fox,  the  English  representa- 
tive®, "does  not  wish  to  disturb  the  tranq;uility  of  the  world.  Its  object  is 
peace,  its  policy  peace.  It  seeks  no  aggrandizement  by  foreigi  conquest,  because 
it  knows  that  no  foreign  acquisitions  could  augment  its  power  and  isportance  so 
rapidly  as  they  are  already  advancing  by  its  own  natural  growth  under  the  propi- 
tious circumstances  of  its  situation".  Thus  peace  was  a policy  dictated  by  in- 


^ Vol.  7,  p.  256. 

2 

"It  is  not  at  all  inprobable  that  the  fact  known  in  Europe  — that  Mr.  Webster 
was  soon  to  be  at  the  head  of  our  foreign  relations,  caused  the  British  Govern- 
ment to  be  less  precipitate  -".  See  (Xirtls  Vol.  2,  p.  62.  "I-Ir.  Curtis  apparently 
believes  that  the  special  mission  from  England  in  1842  would  have  been  impossible 

had  not  Webster  been  Secretary  of  State."  See  Vol.  2,  p.  96. 
g (See  next  pace)  - - - 


jjr  *'■>**  R*”  '1  1 

- X;  • ;.  ' a »x^'  ■..  jf  ' j 

sii  uu  ^ -■'-■»-■';  “-'  ’ ".*?  ‘ T'  ^ '-m-  r ’ >S/i?S® 

s»  .©j  r ,"t<..U.rr  ■ . . '.  ' :.-•-  4^>  •-■*  <•• 


AiVw 


, '.vJ  c;j  ■'.|,..iiy£v 

; . ..  . ;:4^_J,i, 


V 


■ ' 


* 'V-*  * 


. ‘tj  fli.'  '.*  . . ! '-Vfl 

.•  • . . Irr  ' c.'-rj C ^ ■' 

, -*  ■*  ■-  -■'■  '"■ 


■ h ■ -k 


^ - - V A' 

t)  yr*^  *^*f  ax  u 

f- 


«’  .f,‘  v<  '. 


atX  V -!  jv  ■• 

"jjf'ff  '■>  *■  ''  - -r  - 

- ■■  )a'  : ^ • ' ■ ? 


■ ..  : . - 4 


' ■ ' ■ ■■•  ■ ,, 
, /’■  o ■ tv 

;le-‘:noi  ?cn  • /i 


■:..  ?')i.r  . ©*?r”.*OV4  I! 

--  . r ■'•?•,  ■'iv>''  ■ < . ' ■ - ii 

■'■'.■<  ‘'^'  t.  ' ' f 

4 k 4 . ■'.  * m _ _ • A - 


'%  ^ ^ ■>  ' ' V,v7'  >‘3*i  ••  ■ ?.' • ' I 


V r 7'  .'  ' 


>.  tU' 


-r 


'.'/v; 


• ■ ■ •>  .-,4.  ■ n‘  ■ ij" 

> 


;v  - 


% j\  ^ ■ "..V'  1 .V 


L • 


,-'  V }■'  '-. 

, .■••  't  |i  Hi 


f'^k 

■v:s 


oi, 


;;-.j  »• 


. f’  *^. 


- -t  . ‘ : 


J I ! 
•l»*C. 


* -V  • *.  * i ’ . • ^ 

. ^;  ■.  V ©’,j  .■  •.,-'■  ■•  : 

- -••■•  .■  , .'.  \ i J ;i»i.  '.. -A 

i ' . i '/»*/  , Ji-JM.  ■ ,',  ■•(  • ^ ,' 


•f! 


L^'rr:.^  r rJl,:  r r -vrn  t ; ' ' 


’.,  X'3-Jf'T  -•  v:«w  &'<t< 


-.  ■ »■ 
. - .|| 


ii 


/ 


I-.;’'  n:J  .7  . ' 

';  ..  • 1 P*;  .5  '■  • v'*/«  ' . a ri  '>J 

r y!vir'}  c • . ’ - ' ^ -”■■  ’’  ■ 


J . Jfl,'tiil 


1 ,*  r 


• I ' 

^TT-T.-^rr-. 


' ' ' ' vr’  •■  ■ ■ , r 1 

■a»«-  ■ ^1  .,  • ••  •••  ^ t 


33 


terest  as  well  as  lay  principle.  It  seems  probable  that  in  his  later  years  he 
came  to  the  conclusion  that  it  would  be  an  extraordinary  and  unforseeable  kind 
of  war  which  would  bring  advantages  to  our  country  in  measure  to  conpensate  for 
the  interruption  of  its  peaceful  natural  growth.  In  any  case  he  was  ready  at 
all  of  the  occasions  in  which  he  represented  his  country  in  disputes  with  foreign 
nations  to  conpromise,  to  bend,  to  yield  at  least  in  matters  of  minor  importance. 

The  negotiations  in  regard  to  the  Northeastern  boundary  question  illus- 
trate his  views.  In  1833  before  he  had  any  official  capacity  in  that  connection, 
he  submitted  a list  of  suggsstions  to  Mr.  J,  R.  Poinsett,  outlining  his  ideas  on 
how  the  negotiation  ought  to  be  conducted.^  The  first  point  he  made  in  that 
paper  was  that  the  matter  should  be  approached  in  a friendly  spirit.  He  stressed 
tte  need  of  pronpt  action  to  forestall  grovdng  animosity.  The  necessity  of  having 
all  parties  yield  in  some  particulars  he  maintained.  The  danger  to  peace  if  no 
settlement  was  secured  was  reiterated,  A number  of  methods  were  proposed  in  this 
memorandum:  all  of  them  eminently  pacific.  If  nothing  else  availed,  he  would 
not  resort  to  the  decision  of  war,  but  was  ready  to  attempt  another  joint  con>- 
mission  with  neutral  umpirage.  And  if  even  this  should  fail,  war  should  still 
be  avoided,  and  a survey  of  the  disputed  territory  provided  for. 

The  views  expressed  in  this  paper  were  often  repeated,  and  impressively 
carried  out,  when  Webster  became  Secretary  of  State,  Especially  striking  is  his 
emphasis  on  the  point  that  the  absolute  right  of  the  matter  must  not  be  insisted 

^.g,  Mr.  Everett  ”was  informed  tqr  Lord  Ashburton  himself  that  he  should  have  de- 
spaired of  bringing  matters  to  a settlement,  but  for  his  reliance  on  the  — Ameri- 
can secretary".  See:  similar  testimony  by  Sir  Henry  Bulwar,  Curtis  7ol.  2,  p.l25, 
also  p.  124  ft, 

^ol,  2,  p,  262. 
lVr.1.  XV,  p.  119  ff. 

^ The  King  of  Holland  had  rendered  a decision  that  had  been  rejected  by  both 
parties.'  ' 


' ''»  '*  « 

: ,'0*^  ff^'TiiJ^_'4 

' ! --'t..  r *'■•■  , ' 

I.''  1*1  -i,' V f '.  $vi^.y  ■ 


0!?:-.  '.V  ■ •■  ",.‘.i  f . ' -V  T?, 

> » 

^i'r.  ?-tl 


t.-.'i  .v‘j  PfUfT*;,.  ..i  VI 


k**VfA£W?A 


.-. ; • V • ■ * •’  *><"'• 

i- . V:UiL-l''yr  ;•,.. 

f.i,  :..r;v:  r.  <c! 


A h- 


• . ' . .1 ; i i\.  L'  4 5 

jAW‘r'-*fa  fjM 

*•''  » »■  ') 

•*  ' *< 

> : .,r.."t  -5  •>  aiffi-  i?" 


. ■',  '**  . ■ 

'f  .v.'ii/i  tjjity 


’ .t  I'l.'^-.CJti  o‘a 


"U 


\ r>,  ili.‘  .-'f-...'  • - /xv  'iA  i 

■ - ^ ■ v"' ‘ •'  .'  . ■ 


irl 


yK\'!  }V«rf  • '’•'<^‘1'  -• 
-jitf-  «**-v  K 


f ; w'6«  f‘2--i7,XA^ 


. .?  ■ r.  ■;  ’i’  ■'.  • ^ ..■'f:***<i  i ; '•<' 

\'.‘f  ♦ •*  , s > i 

•X  ' ^ 

■-  , i'  : 


» -.n  *;.  ■ 


jrt*  I*-,,-*' 

f:  t.  I'.r/  ' v 'Js'-’' 


Jtrt’ 

3 


^.■;  Q,;  u*iwr;; 


':i.:.  aOittv  ; 


Y -V'-'V'S  / •'* 


t.-Vi:  'vw* 


' -fM' 


; j . 


r*i^  r . ..  . .J'"  -‘i'j'X#  t • ■•■ 

;•  'J--  .,  «.  V»v.  (■?"  ' * 

’■  ,t  ',^X  (,  '..  1 ,;  • •■*  1^'  • 

•“-■'■  tr — 


*'  .'  ■ V •• 


"■  ^...„ :_A.  t**:'.  ! V-  --  ••  *'4  , 


. ' i ' 


;x  ' ■♦.  ■■  ‘ •'  ■ ■ -Mfi-  •; 


V t 

. ^ 

«*V^iLA 


I 


34 

on,  for  this  atteir^t  had  already  failed,  and  an  untending  policy  on  either  side 
would  make  the  achievement  of  a settlement  of  some  sort,  and  the  prevention  of 
war  exceedingly  difficult.^ 

In  fact  he  seemed  relatively  indifferent  to  what  kind  of  a settlement 
he  should  secure  • the  great  thing  was  to  get  a settlement  by  some  means,  and  get 
it  proir5>tly  and  peaceably. 

The  Oregon  furor  also  gave  occasion  for  Webster  to  express  his  belief 

over  that 

in  the  superior  desirability  of  peace territory.  He  believed  it  worth  while 

to  accept  the  forty-ninth  parallel  in  order  to  avoid  the  loss  of  peace  and  the 

evil  of  war,^  Other  losses  and  gains  involved  in  the  affair  he  regarded  as  of 

secondary  importance.  The  Oregon  question,  he  maintained,  ought  to  be  arbitrated 

as  ought  every  international  dispute  which  diplomatic  negotiation  fails  to  settle, 
that  matters 

He  vigorously  denied  so  in^iortant  as  territorial  rights  "are  not  a proper  subject 
of  arbitration".  Such  a stand  would  lead  to  war,  he  felt,  and  a decision  accord- 
ing to  might  only.not  according  to  right  and  Justice.^ 

^ "The re  must  be  mutual  concessions.  ~ Let  me  repeat  the  great  object  is  to  show 
mutual  concession,  and  granting  what  may  bs  regarded  in  the  light  of  equivalents. 
The  absolute  value  of  the  thing  is  not  the  point  of  interest."  Letter  to  Everett, 
June  14,  1842.  See  Curtis  Vol.  2,  p.  102.  In  Vol.  XIV,  pp.  593  ff.  he  again  ex- 
presses the  need  of  disregarding  the  absolute  right  and  avoiding  delay  in  order  to 
prevent  popular  excitement  without  a definite  object.  According  to  Mr.  Curtis: 

"It  was  his  purpose  (in  the  case  of  McLeod)  to  arrest  the  drifting  tendency  of  the 
two  nations  toward  a war.  He  therefore  stated,  with  equal  fairness  and  force  in 
what  respect  each  (nation)  was  in  the  wrong".  Vol.  2,  p.  68. 

^Vol.  IX,  p.  20  ff. 

®Vol.  VII,  p.  153. 

^"Do  not  all  perceive  that  sentiments  like  those  lead  only  to  establish  the  rig^t 
of  the  strongest?  That  they  withdraw  public  questions  between  nations  from  all 
the  Jurisdiction  of  Justice,  and  all  the  authority  of  ri^t,  from  the  control  of 
enli^tened  opinion,  and  the  ^neral  Judgment  of  mankind,  and  leave  them  entirely 
to  the  decision  of  the  longest  sword?  — - The  sense  of  modern  times,  the  law  of 
humanity,  the  honor  of  civilized  states,  and  the  authority  of  religion,  all  re- 
quire that  controversies  of  this  sort,  which  cannot  be  adjusted  by  the  parties 
themselves,  should  be  referred  to  the  decision  of  some  intelligent  and  inpartial 
tribunal."  Speech  at  Banquet  in  Philadelphia,  1846. 


35 


Tte  I^xican  war  was  objected  to  by  Vfebater  on  a large  variety  of 

grconds.  It  was  an  \xn constitutional  "presidential  war"  having  been  inaugurated 

by  the  executive  instead  of  the  legislature,^  It  was  a war  to  make  possible  more 
2 

slave  states.  It  was  a war  waged  for  territory,  he  said,  althou^  the  people 
did  not  want  more  territory,  and  although  the  incorporation  of  new  territory  was 
of  doubtful  constitutionality,® 

Some  of  the  objections  he  made,  however,  reflect  his  more  general  ideas 
about  war  and  peace.  The  United  States  had  nothing  but  dishonor  to  gain  from  the 
war  he  believed.  The  issue  was:  peace,  no  new  states, and  economy  and  prosperity; 
or  war,  new  states,  and  large  and  needless  expenses. 

IVfexico  was  weak,  amd  it  wasplain  that  it  was  no  even  fi^t.  In  order 
to  avoid  all  danger  of  falling  into  a policy  of  shameful  aggresion,  the  Uaited 
States  ou^t  to  offer  her  peace  and  readiness  to  treat  for  boundaries  and  inden>- 

4 

nities.  Peace  without  territory  would  be,  according  to  Webster,  "Ivfere  safe, 
durable  and  honorable".  The  war  as  it  was  being  carried  on  he  characterized  as 
"odious". 

In  1835  he  had  given  evidence  of  his  high  evaluation  of  peace,  France 
hesitated  to  pay  her  debts  for  injuring  United  States  conmerce.  President  Jackson 
was  warlike.  On  this  Juncture  Webster  wrote:  "we  are  not  willing  to  hazard  tl:© 
peace  of  the  country  without  absolute  necessity.  We  wish  to  show  France  that 
there  is  but  one  sentiment  in  the  United  States  as  to  the  Justice  of  our  side  of 
the  question but  at  the  same  time  a great  reluctance  to  come  to  an  open  rup- 

ture, and  in  order  to  avoid  that,  a dl position  to  give  France  full  time  to  con- 
elder  well  of  her  course."  Under  Webster's  leadership  a clause  in  the  fortifi- 
cation bill  to  give  thjB  "warlike"  president  three  millions  to  spend  as  he  liked 

a 

was  struck  out  the  Senate. 

^Vol.  XIII,  p,  334  ff. 

;Vol.  X,  p.  6 ff. 

®Ibid,  p.  14. 

4See  Speech  in  Congress,  quoted  in  Curtis  Vol.  2,  p.  303  ff.  Also  Vol.IX,p, 

t Letter  to  William  Sullivan  quoted  in  Curtis  Vol,  1,  p.  515-6. 

See  Lodfls.  u,  23^5. 


36 


Ife  was  no  advocate  of  "preparedness".  The  institutions  of  the  United 
States,  he  wote,  "entirely  discourage  the  keeping  up  of  large  standing  armies  in 
tlua  of  peace,  and  their  situation  hax^lly  exempts  them  from  the  necessity  of 
maintaining  such  expensive  and  dangerous  establishments. 


4.  National  honorr  qualifications  of  his  peacef’ol  attitude. 

It  is  probable  that  no  conspicuous  statesman,  whose  works  have  been  so 
con5»letely  assembled  as  those  of  Vlr,  Webster,  will  be  found  free  from  a number  of 
inconsistences  and  changes  in  attitude.  It  is  possible,  I think,  to  lay  far  too 
much  stress  t^on  such  changes  or  defections.  There  are  many  causes  for  them 
which  remote  and  unsynmathetic  posterity  find  difficult  to  evaluate. 

While  Webster,  if  con^jared,  for  example,  with  the  foremost  contertporary 
statesmen,  would  shine  with  a relatively  great  freedom  from  inconsistency,  there 
is  a striking  conflict  between  some  of  his  statements  in  regard  to  international 
relations r^soma  seem  to  be  written  from  a point  of  view  quite  foreign  to  that  "by 
which  he  has  been  characterized  above. 

ft 

In  his  early  orations  hs  laid  groat  stress  on  the  idea  that  "national 
honor  is  the  gnomon  of  natural  interest".  American,  he  urged,  should  be  prepared, 
should  have  a large  and  powerful  navy  and  army.^  Our  country  ought  to  insist  on 
a proud  place  among  the  nations,  and  be  intolerant  of  any  Insults,  or  suspected 
insults.*^  It  ought  to  avoid  contented  and  degenerate  gratification  in  its  peace 
and  prosperity,  and  readiness  to  overlook  invasions  of  its  right  in  order  to  main- 
tain a profitable  peace.  Comfort  and  prosperity  should  be  no  consideration  in 

^letter  to  Fox  Vol.  11,  p.  256.  See  also  Vol,  X,  p.  12:against  bigger  army. 

2"0f  course  this  paper  does  not  deal  with  the  alleged  inconsistence  in  regard  to 
slavery  and  other  internal  affairs.  They  are  often  much  exaggerated:  Webster's 
respect  for  law  above  all  prejudices  and  opinions  explains  such  "problems"  in 
largp  measure.  See  also  Speech  on  Presentation  of  Vase,  Works  Vol.  II,  p.180. 
®Se6  Vol.  XVIII,  "Our  dangers,  Gentlemen,  are  not  from  without.  We 

4(jf  p,  above,  have  nothing  to  fear  from  foreign  powers,  except 

5cf  p, above.  those  interruptions  of  the  occupation  of  life  which 

all  wars  occasion.  The  dangers  to  our  system,  as  a 
as  a system,  do  not  spring  from  that  quarter." 


-- 5tsa 


^ , ' * 1 ■ ■ >'. 

■ ••’  * * . --r^- 

* • - I 

• ■ ', 

c " . ii:;: 

Ji 

1 • • C '"-■  •'  f , 

- . «.  1-0 

. »•  , - ' r.y  * '■  . * 

.1* 

*■  :>-  ^ ,*■  . 

• ' j 'litj''.’ 

^ 1 
• .i,  . .^ . fw5?  j 

\ ' 

C ’■ 

; > J-.-t 

( ' ^ ' i 

*V  1 

■ . ' - J . 

: ...  ■:•  w ,.  i. 

r 

-^i-d 

V 

* . . f 

_ _ 

^lir  j.W'v''  flX  '' 

■ -X  . 

‘f 

J ■' 

*r  v.  i 1 . 

Cf:v‘i  ■ 

. . .•  - 

' t."  -Ji  s-“  ■’ 

j „ *'  ^ 

.;  *'.  ,•  - ' , i 

-.4  ■■  ^■ 

. ~v  ‘" : j ; j . ' Cl.;  '■■ 

i 

i^ortf  "'i 

: i'  \i.\lviiij-  rt  ■..•»•;•'  .•'.r^Vfsrr  iiiA  ls-'*V)5«.'S 

'*■  iJ 


, ’'V  '■ 

“"‘l/ 

••..■  ; . ,■•■  ■ >-.■'  .-ri  ^o*I1 

r.rt  fnrr  . - ‘.-•^e  ? h*f  •'.  ' 


■ ' :i 

4f:  'f 

. • i'r*r  t*,a-2w  ■muijA*'  4 jj 


....  ■ * ,•«■  ^ ^ , 'I  )*.  wiJJl'T  ■ '.'?.  » - 'Vw  ‘ f ■ ■ 


. ; f -,, 


* »■  *■■  ■ ' (( 


i 


«.X.  - . ► » "r 


,f. 


-If,  'C’’-  •■ 


■,:i  0,^  : 

fn'  ■ r ''  t ' 

■;  3 ''j:  '•^^'* 

, 'i  "<  t - 'i'  ';fw^  • <■•’  viw-  ^ 

r;  r.'J  r,:  ■ .i  ^^''S20S ' • - -.  •-.'  t 

• ■ , ;.;j  ■•  ;:oo^:wo  V'/..  ■ t ; .jj  , 


\,  Tj;;'  s -•  :.- 


^ 4 I .«r  V* . 


' -• 

■■ , . -.M’,-  ^ ^ SiV‘-r  : 


. I 


T 


■i 


f 


rnv  :''i  ■ 


r«^t, 


t 


• • ‘ *;*r 

1 • ' -I  ' 

1 • 


C . 


: j 


I ,-j  * ' ' • i 


f/. 


j ■ \ 


•.'li-v.  •■ 


.1  *; 


. 'Xviir-j  ' 


0 ’•C'^‘ 

du-.  ■■.:^ 

V 

..  iXi.  t'  ''''  n ‘ 

. ^ !l  3^  . C.-T 
^ \ ■ r 

r, 

“ J 

. ’ ? 0 * .*  " 

• 

k-*'.  ; 

>.•!  <va;I 

* 

. 

■ ■ .'.I'J 

jt  w4r-;ijf 

:••<)  1 r.'» 

\>  A ft« 

* 

V>*’ 

i 


9 


37 


■balance  a^inst  national  honor  and  national  ri^ta.^ 

In  the  Bockingham  Memorial  of  1812  in  which  he  objected  to  the  war  of 
not 

that  year,  he  did  say  he  was  against  war,  as  such;  on  the  contrary  a war  which 
should  have  a "clear,  obtainable,  just  object"  would  secure  his  ST:5)port* 

Later,  when  in  Congress,  when  his  statements  might  be  expected  to  be 
guarded,  he  advocated  the  most  perenptory  action  and  high  toned  language  in  re- 
gard to  the  Northeastern  boundary  question.  Further  eupty  palavering  should  be 
avoided,  and  "Dnited  States  troops  ought  to  march  into  the  territory  claimed,  and 
England  challenged  to  concede  the  land  to  be  ours  or  "put  us  out,  if  you  can".^ 
The  explanation  of  these  contradictions  is  not  very  recondite.  Most  of 
his  most  rabid  outcries  were  made  in  youthful  orations,  and  the  natural  effect  of 
growing  older  must  have  changed  his  views.  The  occasion  of  these  orations,  the 
fourth  of  July,  also  elicited  all  there  was  of  pride  and  bluster  in  him. 

His  energetic  cries  for  preparation  were  made  when  dangerous  wars  with 
powerful  European  powers  were  a widespread  fear.  His  later  opinions  against  a 
larger  army  were  made  in  time  of  secure  peace  or  of  war  with  weak  Ivfexico, 

Most  important  of  all,  these  conflicting  statemsnts  were  made  when  he 
was  out  of  office  or  in  congress  merely.  Much  of  the  time  he  was  in  that  "body  he 
was  a member  of  the  opposition  party.  Like  most  great  statesmen,  he  was  a gpod 
deal  of  a politician  as  well,  and  was  quite  capable  of  saying  things  for  effect. 

I think  it  is  fair  to  view  his  sentiments  in  words  and  in  action  after  he  had 
come  into  responsible  position  and  in  which  the  welfare  of  the  nation  was  to  some 
degree  in  his  hands,  as  truly  representative  of  him.  This,  as  usual,  doubtless 

^Cf  #2,  p,  34  above. 

^Vol,  XIV,  p.  274,  "This  is  a sufficiently  striking  contrast  with  his  later  ac- 
tual policy.  In  that  case  he  did  all  he  could  to  quiet  just  such  "boisterous 
orators  for  ri^ts  and  honors  as  he  had  once  been.  He  even  proposed  to  secure 
concessions  from  England  which  he  recognized  to  be  of  no  value,  in  order  to  use 
them  as  a pacifying  "talking  point",  or  "equivalent". 


~ G- 


: I V 


• -W  {•'.  •.' 


C .i:.^.^^'..  /i-';  'i -l/ivi’' • 

ij 


' » 'iTj  r:'  / ■ . / > 


.'f. ■**»'•  li' ^ ■ . ' ■■  * j ■ - » ■’  K '-,  * ^ v '^‘ 

■■' ..'C 


;a-  I <*'  ■-■  ' ■ •■'*  - «■  f -««if 

r .-.;  yr.Jvc',.^  •*^‘^'^  . r'o^ri'srr-'J  *-  ’ 

^ ! i } .^  . .-•  U.iJ-:-*  . ^ 4 ' ' . X • ^ • ,-  V % - ^ 

- -:■  ■ iri''  ' *'.■;  ' I'  'Uif';/"  * t yf  i,,'p  >’~  f i'.’  ■•  4 ’|C  ■ i %T*4  ?■? 

. •^  '..  ^ 

- , '.  .;■;:.  \-;cJ  J'l'Jt* ' -r . • '•  • 

. ‘W."  > ■:.  o : ‘ 


• . i-r:  ij:  » ■■'•«  •- 


W . r: 

' ' . ■■•V 

/ ' r ■ ■■ '.  o j*  »"  1 ••  ■ " ''.' 

, . V . J • * ■»  •• 


3.,  # 


. t;-v  ;;  VI,  ^0 

^ ■ '(i" 


.v-f  v'  . -l.- : £ tu_  I ^ :■  ■^'.  . y V 


K*  ’* 


': , \V>  ■ .’;; 


" i' ' i.V.*,.’  1/ ■ V':  • ' . 

X-  ;:K-;«av:  V vi  . '. 

...  ;:rf*  riJ-i.  ^ ’ir  Id  eoBt-  '' v;^v  r*  ? 

,...;-■  ":j?  i!'.'  Jl:;  JfidKi 

‘\X'^ 

;:.-■  i -;V’.  '..i  •^^  -V 


r:  :r.-'  *>:  ■ ,;.':i?i 

:*.’;■  A «u-«  pr  ■ 

I ' * * : 7- 

■v;  :p  r?*-  ^ :^v&T5!  Ia-^' 

■ •:.:  ;ir-<ra  ':.,  :;  ■■■>■':;  ' 


+ i . ■ r.  'lir  i ‘ "■  ' . 


' '-.  "I’J:  -vj/iSilv'  it’  t'jcr  •■•■'  .P  t> 

■ .-,;  . -V1-. ' ^ 

.Mj.  ■•>>  C,:  • 

r*i  .tt  iffn'iT  iwfc'i?  .• , ai  3JS,}  ' i 

■ ‘\"J  ':jj  . ■ ^ ' “ 


vC- 


^ _ 
, " V !ii  tw  . ’‘^- 


4.  M-  i^: 


•;  V £ifrjf'.v^y?-  • .'V 


V,  j . 


’■ly.ft.  \iiff  ‘‘  ‘ ^*<1*  i9-~-'>-  ’;  ••  ■ ^* 

Rr<r:*:  r/.  ; '' 

' 6 * '• -rv*' - \,r ■«■■«■,.  > *'  ^• 

:<; ’•  -•:•  •. c irvo  '.:  ,;.  r )•■/ 

•'■  ■# 


■ y !•  • L --  •• 

V U;-; 

t.'K.-  •-'-:  &:  .;..•  ■♦•  > - 

■ A ■?•  . '-‘i  i '2^*-  2 '^'  ~ 


n 


V T 

* ^ ■.  'S'r\:£ 

■’■  tv  ■ ' c>  htpsc 

,:  A , ; ,V  ■ f ^ )l^l 


JATiWtSpr 


--  - 


38 

may  have  had  some  tendency  to  make  him  conservative.  It  also  elicited  from  him 
his  truest  and  most  sincere  beliefs.  He  regarded  the  duty  of  a government  as  a 
sincere  desire  to  preserve  peace  and  do  Justice,^  and  the  purpose  of  a diplomat, 
to  prevent  'ftsx. 

After  sdl,  actions  speak  louder  than  words,  and  It  is  most  significant 
that  he  was  opposed  to  each  of  the  several  wars  that  Ms  country  engaged  in  dur- 
ing Ms  lifetime,  and  wMle  in  office  as  Secretary,  settled  an  extraordinaurily 
large  number  of  the  most  puzzling  and  vexatious  controversies,  while  popular 
excitement  and  indignation  ws^s  extensive,  without  a single  time  falling  to  avert 
warfare . ® 

5.  The  influence  of  commercial  considerations  upon  Webster's 
ideas  on  foreign  relations. 

The  recognition  by  Webster  of  the  influence  of  commercial  intercourse 
in  knitting  the  world  together  has  alreeuiy  been  noted.  A regard  for  the  welfare 
of  commerce  was  one  of  the  foremost  considerations  in  Ms  formulation  of  parti- 
cular policies  for  the  United  States. 

The  in^jortance  of  Conraerce  to  this  country  was  fully  appreciated  by 
nations 

tMs  statesman.  Much  of  the  progress  and  prosperity  he  attributed  to  it.  Agri- 
culture, industry  and  commerce  are  all  united  aid  they  will  prosper  or  wane  to- 

4 

get  her,  he  declared  on  various  occasions,  but  commerce  was  plainly  the  most'im-. 

port ant  in  his  opinion.® 

^Vol.  11,  p.  256. 

2Vol.  p.  210. 

®-^he  significance  of  tMs  - although  very  great,  I believe,  - can  be  exaggerated. 
England  for  example  deserves  a large  part  of  the  credit  for  the  peaceable  settle- 
ment of  our  disputes  with  her.  Lord  Aberdeen  was  pacific;  England  not  only  grant- 
ed a special  commission,  to  meet  in  our  capitol,  but  appointed  an  agent  noted  for 
Ms  frlendsMp  to  the  United  States.  She  offered  to  indemnify  the  owners  of  the 
"Tigris’*  and  Saamew".  See  Webster’s  Memoir,  Ch.  1;  works  Vol.  1,  p.  119,  "His 
cMef  cause  of  his  objection  to  Mexican  war  was  that  it  was  "borou^  mongering" 
and  would  destroy  the  proportion  between  the  Senate  and  House  - and  slave  and  free 
representatives;  not  a mere  loss  of  peace."  Yol.  X,  p,  14  ff, 

4Vol.  XII,  p.  12. 

5He  was  against  the  artificial  stimulation  of  industry  by  tariffs.  Yol.  XIY,  p. 
45-6  and  Yol.  XII,  p.  7.  "The  Inportance  of  commerce  to  our  internal  prosperity 
not  only,  was  stressed  by  Webster,  but  commercial  supremacy  seemed  to  Mm  the 
wortMest  aim  of  international  competition.  To  secure  the  commercial  advantage, 
he  held,  was  to  secure  the  mastery  of  the  world. "Yol.  XIII,  p.  164.  Yol,  XIY,  p, 
61Q.  Commerce  credited  with  internal  improvements;  etc.  Yol.XIII,p.  151  ff. 


,|  . 


■ir 

\k  - 


c 


*).■•■  VJ 


’,  ‘.  r y 

1 .i  M 


<4 


I 


If  J't 


. •■  ; . I - 


» . jrf  -.  ,r*A.  < . 

j -;.«  '-v-  i 


:."nl  :l'll 


■.;:  -ovc:,  . 


i';,'  r 


\:-. 


- ■ ' 1 i . 

V;.  3tV 


i.  - 


■ e^:X 


, 'Ul 


L i 

4 ^ 


" ■'  . 'f;; 


. ■>*■- 


.!  i G/,-  r 


. • V - »'  • 


i '.  'A 


■«l«^ 


- i 


.)  ' ..  ] 


' c ‘ 

; ':•  / ‘ 


r .'  '.1 


1 • • • 

, ■ I*'  ■■#  .-j 


. t 


[/j^i  .,  j(». 


J >•.■  ■ V r't 


39 


Steadiness  and  continnlty  In  our  forei^i  relations  he  championed  as  principles  of 
fundamental  in5»ortance,  since  the  necessity  of  making  readjustments  to  changes  in 
national  politics  was  highly  injurious  to  commerce.^ 

The  need  of  an  effective  navy  to  protect  our  commerce  was  ea^^hasized  by 
Webster,^  It  was  his  solicitude  for  commerce  in  part  at  least  that  made  him  urge 
that  the  war  of  1812  be  fought  on  the  sea. 

This  war  aroused  his  heartiest  opposition  partly  because  he  was  a con- 
servative Whig  and  shared  the  general  New  England  horror  of  developments  in  France 
and  the  feeling  that  England  was  more  a bulwark  for  us  against  our  real  danger 
than  our  true  enemy,  partly  because  the  English  injuries  to  our  coramerde  were  no 
worse  in  intent  than  the  French,  and  because  while  we  had  a feeling  of  grievance, 
we  hqd  no  definite,  obtainable  object  to  secure;  but  his  primary  and  most  funda- 
mental objection  was  a protest  against  the  injuries  to  our  commerce  it  caused  or 
aggravated.  The  Embargo  elicited  a most  vigorous  series  of  attacks.®  "Be  main- 
tained that  it  was  unconstitutional  and  without  precedent;  but  the  injuries  to 
commerce  were  his  chief  motive  for  protesting. 

ffi-s  attitude  on  the  acquisition  of  new  territory  influenced  by  consid- 
erations of  comnercial  advantage.  The  securing  of  Louisiana  and  Florida  had  been 
justified  he  repeatedly  pointed  out,  because  of  their  strategic  positions  for 
trade. ^ Since  no  great  commercial  advantage  would  result  from  the  acquisition  of 
Texas,  these  incidents  did  not  provide  a precedent  for  that  action.  The  acquisi- 
tion of  California,  on  the  other  hand,  was  quite  a different  matter,  for  it  con- 

5 

tained  a highly  valuable  port  for  commerce  and  fishing. 
hou  TTlO  and  Vol.  XIV,  p.  40  ft, 

2see  Vol.  XII,  p,  15  and  "An  Appeal  to  Old  Whigs"  in  Vol.  XV. 

3see  "Article  on  the  Embargo,  1808"  and  the  "Rockingham  Memorial"  works  Vol. XVIII. 
4Vol.  XV,  p.  302;  ibid  p.  485. 

5"0f  course  the  fact  that  Texas  would  be  slave  and  California  free,  territory  was 
another  consideration  that  helped  to  determine  Webster's  attitude.  But,  I think 
that  commercial  considerations  were  also  weighty  with  him  in  this  matter.  See 
Vol.  XIV,  p.  611. 


\ 


I 


! 


.•  ■ /f  ' 


J ^ I 


40 


Webater  was  far-sifted  and  keenly  alert  to  farther  the  interests  of 
trade  as  secretary  of  state.  As  soon  as  Great  Britain  secured  privileges  in 
China,  he  foretold  that  it  was  the  beginning  of  the  opening  of  China  to  the  world, 
and  be  determined  that  the  United  States  should  secure  advantages  there,  also.^ 

In  the  interest  of  "coniraerce  and  humanity"  he  appointed  a mission  to  China,  and 
took  the  greatest  pains  to  secure  its  success  in  establishing  cordial  relations 
with  the  oriental  povser  and  in  securing  a comercial  treaty. 

He  sent  a special  mission  to  Argentina  to  secure  commercial  advantages 
from  the  new  regime  that  followed  revolution  in  that  country.^ 

Private  war  he  believed  should  be  abolished.  It  was  to  the  interest  of 
the  United  States  that  it  should  be  so,  for  althouf  it  was  true  that  that  nation 
could  muster  the  most  effective  navy  of  privateers  which  had  the  greatest  merchant 
navy;  also  it  was  true  that  there  must  be  something  to  be  captured  and  the  nation 

4 

with  the  most  extensive  trade  would  be  the  greatest  sufferer. 

The  only  exception  to  our  policy  of  neutrality  that  he  approved  was 

L 

commercial  treaties.  These,  he  admitted  mitigates  our  neutral  status,  but  the 
formation  of  such  treaties  as  "affect  directly  the  interest  of  the  United  States" 
— constituted  a legitimate  exception  to  the  "policy  — to  avoid  — alliances  with 
other  states",® 


IVol.  XII,  p.  139  ff, 

2Vol.  XIV,  p.  427. 

3Vol.  XIV,  p,  617. 

^Vol.  V.,  p.  210  ff. 

®Vol,  XIV,  p.  464,  "When  Mxico  objected  to  illegal  trade  which  caused  her  em- 
barrassment, he  replied  that  no  law  gave  the  president  pov/er  to  punish  the  offen- 
ders; all  the  Uhlted  States  can  do  is  to  permit  Mexico  to  punish  them  if  she  can. 
It  is  impossible  to  say  whether,  if  he  had  been  the  advocate  of  the  other  side, 
he  could  have  found  another  interpretation  of  our  laws.  It  is  a question  whether 
or  not  this  was  a manifestation  of  extreme  partisanshiip  for  trading  interests." 


41 


V.  Conclusions 

Webster  was  not  one  of  those  intellectual  leaders  whom  we  recognize  as 
being  in  advance  of  their  age.  He  saw  clearly  the  issues  of  his  day,  and  met  them 
wisely,  according  to  the  generally  recognized  principles  of  that  day.  I feel  that 
he  laid  down  no  new  principles  of  great  importance,  but  he  was  the  advocate  of  the 
wisest  principles  which  were  then  generally  recognized.  In  the  advocacy  of  peace, 
the  inviolability  of  territory  and  neutrality^,  the  supreme  and  universal  Juris- 
diction of  international  law,  and  the  ri^ts  of  small  nations,  it  would  be  by  no 
means  impossible  to  argue  that  he  was  the  prophet  of  those  principles  which  recent- 
ly have  been  so  greatly  emphasized.  By  taking  isolated  sentences  of  his  and  com- 
paring them  with  expressions  of  Wilson  and  others,  striking  results  could  be  ob- 
tained. I have  not  thou^t  it  worth  while  to  do  this,  because  I believe  that 
method  fit  only  to  illustrate  already  proved  and  accepted  results,  for  isolated 
quotations  can  easily  be  re^rded  in  an  unrepresentative  li^t. 

While  Webster  was  not  the  phrophet  of  the  twentieth  century,  he  may  be 
regarded  as  one  of  the  predecessors  of  this  era  that  hs»  made  its  present  stage  of 
advancement  possible.  Contemporary  principles  are  the  result  of  an  evolution  in 
thought,  and  Webster  was  one  of  the  links  in  this  revolution.  Althou^  he  was  op- 
posed to  combinations  of  nations  for  the  purpose  of  regulating  international  af- 
fairs, believing  the  seporte  individuality,  the  complete  sovereignty  and  the  legal 
equality  of  mtions  to  be  a principle  of  fundamental  importance,  nevertheless  he 
regarded  as  hi^ly  valuable  friendship  and  co-operation  between  nations.  He  re- 
garded cooperation  as  entirely  voluntary  - euny  nation  could  deny  it  and  seek  its 
own  interest  as  it  saw  fit. 

^See:  Correspondence  on  the  Caroline  affair.  In  defending  the  principle  of  neu- 
trality in  another  connection  he  said  we  would  be  Justified  in  taking  up  arms  in 
the  defense  of  violated  neutrality,  other  than  our  own.  This  car  be  compared  to 
our  attitude  in  regard  to  the  invasion  of  Belgium  in  the  recent  war . 


-'r. 


■<< 


■^0, 


v,,|V 


r,7 

'f 


■ uCiCif  ■■■ii.i.:'  . ■ ' 

■ **  ' 

■■■w:-  v;  Mi  :c-  rr'^r"  < -'■  - 'cr -r\i,  ■■■  - • 

-'^vi  i • . . .V.:..  iKKftbi  ^;.'  v.-i  -.i-  :*■'  :ti  ) 

' * . t ' . * , V 


,j  Ut^l  X 


5X...  :o  o^«oovi.  c.';  C^.»a  SU^'  V Wftc  «l'f  tiaX  ^ 


£ 


'io  •e^jr'a.:  . s»ix^j  .t.  t , t ‘r  f ^ ^ ^ ^ .'■  ii;  •£■  .’*niv 


-i  i*I4  ^ V1...V  'vXii  tA.7'J"^041  #jSt  , *'  ? 1 t i,-  •■  * i .,  V iiiCiV 


'■::  V"  t C'  \t'  , ^v^^  ^*.Vu  • X 9^  ‘"-  - i . ■'  ifcity-U- .. 

. ' ■ J h ' *T  ^ 


,'.  oo^-i  -Llt/.irf?;  a3i'^'“~iw'* i-’  (v^  liXi  - r_  j>:  * sr««ui» 


•-^0‘'‘'  tict.?  -:i  to  *«.*'.' iK'.JACojl  .’n-^- ■;:':  . :T.*i§i/^''.  <*c  iitcd"  yv«/  v.j 

• ' ' ■ ^ . ,' 

-:'c>  00  i-wv’  -i  «-C4/»ftJ!!'  .■•..I  .••:•’..••'•■■  ,..i.ir*i^O  ftb  ,-.  •««>  ei;c<.  -■-*:  c'tt.Tco  /.tlw  ^M3»UX;;p  . | 

. r ' •■r'  Mm  ' ^ \.  . . \ ^ ■'.1  i 


jASiiS  frv.li  .-/  I ■• 

l/ej.vl,;;. : 'I.-;  .;  ■ n .utn  0-  vi/'  :; 


■/'■•’  ' ‘ 1'  ■ 

i*rx  iTr/-^  \i/'itfit 


.-I : * - : *:z  ftrZi  t 'S’  4 Iz. 


■^.‘f>  i#.-  ,Vf  . r*i^*  » - • . . 1 


j .,, 


^ .4  «%  -4 


p.  . 'f/vwoi.r  « 


< ^ ' "^i’> 

Ic  «v, wi.^0  .3r.'ies'''f.^  I '3r?ii  ..ii.iJ'  «“rc  aidi  :.c ci  ; ■.•«!» #:.  ■ v-yto;  !-i«  t-.  .vio  y^n.  '•'. 

• .•:;;  id  trS  r-?*  V U':  -.  ' i^^>A  ■■  - ‘ • ''>-<  ‘ 


r,  • xtyUz/fs-v:  .s.:  ■ ■ • ■■  •■■  ■■" 


’)  * t I w»  fc*  • •' 


\ -■  • f;:^'3^'^JvortvC.‘  . ;■  /X >•«?■$•,  ■ t::  rst  »ifts4X-'^.  > ' 

I .’»•>  t^4i.*4fni»y^U  3Pt  is  '-; 

■■•».. ..'  • ■/  rrn.4 ■i»x  o.'s*  u*;i  ; ■.•■J’:'?.J'‘:«rA  : :;^  j-s 

4«f  .y:  * X’-i-Xit  .•»h2j.V.‘ I 


■•  , .•-i»jO'.'4.'' 


, «v .' 


' ‘.  -r». 

•■•v  - ■ ^ * 


.•  If^. 


. -.y  ..  .':.  "C‘ 

■.,'.-:o  -,.u.  '^11' 


- 'T. 


•j.i  sv’ 


’•*i..^-.  ' ' “ s-.ij  r<c-X.V-j  > rX'L 


)»U:T(  . X - 


•••  #V*. 


- r» 


X4;rpj  ''^• 


j*?,- 


« •-' 


■•■•'  •.  ,.  i no  fliocoXiftu;.  ;•  • 

vH  . r. ' . -■  ' VX-'5 

.'lit  . t:xjC-;'r  Ic  ‘ w 

■;i‘  ’ ."ni  Ok.i.’  r,w‘  ^'t.■•,>0'l  at  • i 


i 


Irt*- 


42 

He  even  strongly  suggests  that  a nation  had  a ri^t  to  withdraw  from  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  international  law  if  it  believed  that  advantages  could  thereby  be  gained, 
that  would  condensate  for  ostracism  by  the  rest  of  the  world. 

It  is  impossible  to  say,  if  he  had  held  hie  opinions  at  the  beginning 

of  this  century  and  had  they  been  subject  to  the  influence  of  recent  events  and 
whether 

developments,^ he  would  have  come  to  the  view  that  some  "League  of  nations"  is 
necessary,  or  whether  he  would  have  been  one  of  the  ir  re  cone  i liable  "save-our-sov- 
ereignty"  statesmen.  Both  x^oints  of  view  inherit  something  from  Webster. 

In  answer  to  the  question  as  to  whether  Webster  was  or  was  not  an  oppor- 
tunist, it  may  be  said  that  he  had  certain  objects  the  accomplishment  of  which  he 
regarded  as  of  paramount  importance,  and  in  all  his  important  works  these  funda- 
mental motives  may  be  discerned.  These  purposes  were  his  principles:  to  them  he 
was  ever  faithf\il;  among  them  were  his  belief  in  the  importance  of  maintaining  the 
integrity  and  vigor  of  the  constitution;  the  union  and  solidarity  of  the  nation  as 
a whole,  etc.  ^ 

In  the  pursuit  of  these  objects,  and  the  prestige  and  interest  of  his 

country  abroad,  he  was  not  always  entirely  ingenuous,  it-  seems  to  me.  In  his 

(that  is 

method  of  settling  the  N.E.  boundary  questiom^by  intrinsically  worthless  "equiva- 

lents")he  was  obviously  not  so.  I believe  that  the  marked  difference  between  his 
statements  his 

peaceful  in  this  matter  and  earlier  warlike  statements  ou^t  not  to  bo 

points  of  view  held. 

•scribed  to  opportunism;  both,^I  feel,  were  sincerely  He  followed  his  principles, 
but  he  held  different  ones  at  different  periods. 

If  it  is  opportunism  to  give  all  the  plausible  reasons  for  a course  of 
action  one  can  think  of,  in  addition  to  the  real  deciding  motive,  then  Webster  was 
surely  an  opportunist.  The  long  list  of  argument  against  The  Mexican  War,  al- 
thou^  he  probably  believed  them  to  be  valid,  would  not  have  been  given,  it  seems 
to  me,  had  it  not  been  for  the  fear  of  nev/  slave  territory  and  the  overbalancing 


43 


power  in  the  hands  of  the  South  and  West  which  would  result  from  the  formation  of 
new  states.  In  his  diplomatic  correspondence  he  showed  a real  respect  for  inter- 
national law  and  endeavor  to  Increase  its  effectiveness,  hut  he  was  also  an  advo- 
cate as  well  as  a Judge  and  if  he  had  had  different  objects  to  attain  he  would 
have  laid  dovm  the  law  in  a different  way. 

Althou^  his  principles  clearly  defended  the  ri^t  to  intervene  in  Euro- 
pean affairs,  in  fact  a duty  to  use  our  influence  there;  "our  duty  to  ourselves, 
our  policy,  and  wisdom"  exempted  us  from  any  necessity  of  sacrificing  our  interest 
to  the  maintenance  of  consistancy  in  our  attitude,  he  believed. 

But  whether  a statesman  is  an  opportunist  in  the  sense  that  he  seeks  on 
all  occasions  to  advance  his  purposes,  regardless  of  consistency  with  pirevious 
methods,  or  whether  he  confines  his  methods  for  securing  his  ends  to  the  grooves 
prescribed  by  hie  self-established  precedent,  is  of  less  importance  than  the  na- 
ture of  those  purposes  themselves;  whether  his  aims  are  narrow,  sectional,  parti- 
san and  selfish;  or  broadvisioned,  dispassionate  and ^for  the  advancing  of  wide  and 
inclusive  interests,  and  whether  he  is  able  to  subordinate  smaller  interests  to 
greater  ones. 

This  test  Webster  can  well  stand.  The  great  purposes  to  which  he  denot- 
ed his  life  and  by  which  he  will  always  be  remembered  were  not  sectional  but  as 
wide  as  the  nation.  Party  issues  did  not  alter  his  stand  on  matters  of  fundamen- 
tal inportance In  his  management  of  foreign  affairs  he  did  not  use  his  power  for 

I-' 

small  ends,  but  sought  only  the  welfare  of  the  nation.  And  even  when  issues  were 
at  stake  in  which  he  was  vitally  interested,  he  did  not  permit  quarrels  with  the 
administration  endanger  our  foreign  relations. ^ And  not  only  national  benefit  but 
the  mutual  advantage  of  nations  was  sou^t  by  him. 

^An  interesting  treaties  mi^t  be  written  on  Webster  as  a party  roan.  In  one  of  his 
early  protests  against  Jefferson’s  regime  the  chief  grievances  he  mentions  are 
strikingly  similar  to  those  of  the  Hartford  convention.  Lodge  felt  he  was  a con- 
senrative,  politician,  a party  man.  Curtis  admires  his  independence.  The  general 
situation  of  political  parties  was,  of  course,  anomalous,  during  a large  part  of 
nis  career.  ° ^ 

^See  Curtis,  vol.  2,  p.  70-1.  


v*««'  ;■*'  '■  - 


. :;f 


'i  rt‘> 
' i 


•:v-  r 


; ;v  : ‘ 


rt  . ' ■ 

.:  ‘l:  ' . ;■■  •' 


v.fi 


r'l..  1^,'W 

.r;  i 


5;f*f  ' , H Xp  ^ 


V 


t v.  ■ 


, N I ', -f  i >t 


7'f-  ’ « 

( 


tia 


?T 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


I.  Works; 

I .  The  Writings  and  Speeches  of  Daniel  Webster . 

13  vols.  Boston  1893.  Little,  Brovm  & Co. 

II .  The  Great  Speeches  and  Orations  of  Daniel  Webster. 
Boston  1879;  Little,  Brovm  & Co. 

Ill,  The  Works  of  Daniel  Webster  - 6 vols.  Boxton  1851. 

Charles  C.  Little  and  Janes  Bro'/m. 

IV .  The  Private  Correspondence  of  Daniel  Webster  - 

edited  by  Fletcher  Webster.  2 vols.  Boston  1857. 
Little,  Brown  and  Co. 

II.  Biographical  and  Critical; 

i 

I.  The  Life  of  Daniel  Webster,  by  George  Tedmor  Curtis. 

2 vols.  New  York  1872.  D.  Ai^leton  and  Co. 

II.  Daniel  Webster,  by  Henry  Cabot  Lodge,  American  States- 
men Series.  Boston  1883,  Houghton  Mefflm  and  Co. 

III.  Demiel  Webster,  by  Frederic  Austin,  Ogg. , Ph.D., 

American  Crises  Biographies.  Plula.  1914.  George 
W.  Jacobs  and  Co. 

IV .  A Discourse  Occasioned  by  the  Death  of  Daniel  Webster, 
by  Theodore  Parker  .Boston  1853.  Benjamin  B.  Murrey 
and  Co. 

III.  General: 

I.  Americans  Foreign  Relations . by  Willis  Fletcher  John- 
son. 2 vols.  N.  Y.  1916.  The  Century  Co, 

II.  American  Diplomacy . by  Carl  Russell  Fish.  N.  Y.  1916. 
Henry  Holt  and  Co. 


